1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 3,454,400, and 5% per annum from June 22, 2017 to June 19, 2018.

1. On July 19, 2010, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows: seven debt collection cases and five lawsuit lawsuit cases (e.g., D and two others; B & construction cost: E and two others; F and two others; F and one other; B & 1; B & 1; G are returned to e.g.) and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million in advance.

However, the Defendants did not proceed with only part of the claim collection case among the above acceptance case, while only the first instance court proceeded with the lawsuit claiming the refund of deposit against G during the lawsuit filing period, and did not proceed with the remaining cases.

In addition, in the case of the claim for construction cost against F and two others, the period of prescription has become impossible to bring an action against F and two others.

Nevertheless, the Defendants transferred the responsibility to H, which was a chief secretary, and only paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff as part of the agreed amount on February 3, 2015.

The Plaintiff, as a result of the Defendants’ above acts, incurred the following damages (aggressing KRW 71,400,000,000). As such, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 50 million as a partial claim.

8 million won out of the retainerion amount of KRW 10 million (one of the five cases of filing a lawsuit, which shall be returned to the remainder of KRW 8 million);

B. 2.4 million won and 2.4 million won and 3 million won which the Defendants acquired, but did not pay to the Plaintiff.

(c) KRW 1 million paid as the retainerion of the appellate case against G (a total of KRW 3.5 million was paid, but excluding KRW 2.5 million as the stamp delivery fee);

(d) Construction cost (F, etc., two persons) which has not been paid as a result of the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, which is KRW 57 million;

2. Before determining the merits of the judgment, the conclusion of the instant lawsuit delegation contract with the Plaintiff is “law firm B,” and the instant lawsuit against Defendant C’s law firm (LLC) is unlawful, based on each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 as to Defendant C’s assertion that the instant lawsuit against Defendant C is unlawful, the law firm is merely a structural change to Defendant C’s law firm (LLC) and is therefore the rights and obligations of the previous legal entity.