1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C: (a) from May 3, 2015, 200,000 won and its corresponding year;

8. up to 26.5% per annum;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 17, 2015, Defendant C entered into a contract with Defendant D and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) to acquire all the shares and management rights at KRW 60 million.

B. On May 2, 2015, the Defendants: (a) entrusted the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law, with the following measures to prevent termination of the said underwriting contract; (b) the process of stock transfer; (c) the change of the officer positions of the Defendant Company; (d) the change of the Defendant Company’s website; (e) the receipt of the representative telephone number of the Defendant Company; and (vi) the acquisition of the Defendant Company member DB; and (c) agreed on KRW 100 million as a contingent fee for the performance of duties, with the commencement of the business.

(hereinafter “instant delegation contract”). C.

Under the delegation contract of this case, the Plaintiff started and proceeded with the process of stock transfer, change of the officer positions, change of the website, and acquisition of representative telephone numbers.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without any dispute (the Plaintiff and Defendant Company), there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, entry of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of all pleadings (the Plaintiff and Defendant C)

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found above, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay fees of KRW 22 million (including value-added tax) agreed upon by the Defendants, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 3, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date on which the delegation contract of this case was concluded and the obligation to pay fees arises.

B. The judgment on Defendant C’s assertion is to the effect that the above delegation contract is null and void, since the duties delegated to the Plaintiff under the delegation contract of this case were all fulfilled at the time of the conclusion of the contract.