2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a company established for the purpose of human management business, etc.

D Around 201, around 201, a contract was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “F”) to contribute to F&D as the “H” role of F&D, a producer of F&D (hereinafter “F”) and F-W’s Rama “G” (hereinafter “instant contribution contract”).

According to the instant contribution agreement, the period of photographing was from October 1, 201 to December 30, 201, and from the E’s contribution fee, F would pay the sum of KRW 500 million to D four times in cash as follows.

First: 3rd: 150 million won (30% of the total amount of contributions) and 100 million won (excluding weekends) and 200 million won (20% of the total amount of contributions) before five days before entering China: November 20, 2011: 10 million won (30% of the total amount of contributions) within five days after the conclusion of contract: 100 million won (20% of the total amount of contributions) within five days after the completion of the E’s role shooting.

B. D received KRW 500,000,000,000 from F through I, an employee in charge of the Chinese dramama, on each of the above dates.

C. D was merged with the Plaintiff established on June 16, 2015 for the purpose of the UN Entertainment business, artist, sports player, and other authorized management business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that Defendant B held the shares issued D in the name of tea, and actually managed the said company. Defendant C, who held office as the representative director, was an internal director even after the resignation of the representative director on July 15, 2009.

The Defendants, in collusion, did not deposit the 500 million won of the contribution received from F into the D account, and embezzled personal consumption.

Therefore, since the Defendants inflicted damages equivalent to the above amount on D, the Defendants are liable for joint tort to the Plaintiff that merged D with the Plaintiff.