In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the above fine shall be paid on 100.

Defendant

A is a person who was the representative director of D, and Defendant B was a person who served as the chief director of the above company.

Defendant

A, among the shares of the above company (total 60,00 shares), 30,000 shares of the above company (total 60,00 shares), and 18,000 shares of the above company (the remaining 50% shares) were held by Defendant A, on July 21, 2014, the agreement on stock donation with Defendant A, among the above 30,000 shares, and the list reflecting the agreement, was made by the shareholders reflecting the agreement, and there was a dispute with Party E as to the validity of the agreement. On June 4, 2015, the prohibition of exercise of voting rights filed by G against Defendant A and Co., Ltd., by recognizing the validity of the above share donation agreement (the Suwon District Court Decision 2015Kahap 10124, Jun. 5, 2015) to be held at a general meeting of shareholders held on June 5, 2015, limited only 12,00 shares to be exercised against Defendant A.

Nevertheless, the Defendants had not yet registered G’s shares, and Defendant A, taking advantage of the status of representative director of the above company, excluded F and G, Defendant B was appointed as director of the above company while only Defendant A was present, and the Defendants conspired to take office as joint representative director.

Accordingly, on June 5, 2015, the Defendants held a temporary general meeting of shareholders at the office of the above company located in Suwon-si H601, and subsequently rejected the resolution of dismissal of Defendant A, a representative director, while only Defendant A, who is a representative director, who is able to exercise only voting rights for 12,000 percent of the shares of the above company, is present, and Defendant B passed a resolution of appointment of Defendant B as a representative director. After holding a board of directors at the same place, Defendant B was appointed as a representative director and the Defendants were appointed as a joint representative director, and then made a false resolution of the contents that the Defendants jointly represent.