1. The Defendant’s KRW 77,085,652 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 27, 2016 to May 31, 2017.

Basic Facts

C When the judgment against part of the Defendant was rendered on the case of delivery of acquired goods against the Defendant by the non-party 5, the Defendant appealed the above judgment and concluded a delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the Seoul High Court 2014Na21252 (hereinafter “instant litigation case”), which is the appellate court (hereinafter “instant litigation case”), on May 7, 2014, agreed to pay 15% of the reduced amount at the time of the completion of delegated affairs (excluding value-added tax), and the contingent remuneration is “if the amount of the claim is reduced due to success in the judgment, conciliation or quasi-judicial proceedings, 15% of the reduced amount shall be paid as the contingent remuneration (excluding value-added tax).”

On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a letter of delegation of a lawsuit on May 26, 2014, and attended on the date and date of conciliation in total nine times for a period of one year and eight months, and submitted 30 documents, such as five preparatory documents and one reference document (comprehensive), and was sentenced to a reduction of the amount the Defendant would pay to C, etc., in part, compared to the first instance court on February 4, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute. According to the above facts of recognition that there is a claim for contingent fees as to the grounds for the claim of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the whole pleadings, the defendant was sentenced to the appellate court's decision that pays the plaintiff to C, etc. the amount lower than the judgment of the first instance court at the end of performing delegated affairs in the lawsuit, so the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff

On the basis of the calculation of successful remuneration, according to each entry of Gap evidence 2-1 and 2 (the first and second court rulings), it is recognized that the amount of 513,904,348 won has been reduced as follows.

CD EF GH Plaintiff asserts that the amount equivalent to the interest of the first and second trials should be considered as the subject of reduction. However, each of the above rulings shall be annually from the date following the delivery of a copy of a complaint to the date of sentencing.