2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Status of a party;

The plaintiff is an accounting firm with certified public accountants who engage in accounting audit, accounting, and tax services, and the defendant is a company running insurance business, etc.

(b) Conclusion, etc. of insurance contracts;

1) From around 1999, the Plaintiff concluded a specialized liability insurance contract with the content that guarantees liability for damages to a third party, where the Plaintiff or its affiliated accountants, etc. incurred damages to the third party due to negligence, etc. while performing their accounting duties by setting the insurance company including the Defendant every year and the insurance period every year.

2) On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

3) Of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”), the parts related to the instant case are as follows. Meanwhile, the English terms and conditions are accompanied by a translation of the terms and conditions, and the interpretation of the instant insurance contract is stated as being in accordance with the English terms and conditions.

본문내 포함된 표 ○ 영문약관 INSURING AGREEMENTS I. COVERAGE-PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY The Company will pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as compensatory damages caused by acts, errors, or omissions in the Insured's performance of professional accounting services for others, provided that claim is first made against the Insured for said acts, errors or omissions during the policy period and written notice of said claim is received by the Company during the policy period. II. DEFENSE, SETTLEMENT, SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS As respects such insurance as is afforded by other terms of this policy, the Company shall: (A) Defend in the Insured's name and on the Insured's behalf any civil action for compensatory damages against the Insured, even if such suit is groundless, false or fraudulent, but the Company shall have the right to make such investigation and negotiation of any claim as may be deemed expedient by the Company. EXCLUSIONS Insuring Agreements I and II do not apply: (C) to any claim arising out of any act, error or omission occurring prior to the effective date of this policy if there is other insurance applicable, or the insured at the effective date knew or could have reasonably foreseen that such act, error or omission might be expected to be the basis of a claim or suit; CONDITIONS I. POLICY PERIOD AND CLAIMS MADE PROVISIONS This policy applies to acts, errors or omissions in the Insured's performance of professional accounting services provided that claim is first made during the policy period and written notice of said claim is received by the Company during the policy period. If during the policy period, the Company shall receive written notice of an act, error or omission which could reasonably be expected to give rise to a claim against the Insured under this policy, any claim which subsequently arises out of such act, error or omission shall be considered a claim first made against the Insured during the policy year in which the written notice was received. ○ 번역문(영문 약관에 첨부된 것) 보상조건 I. 담보조항 - 전문인 배상책임 보험사는 피보험자를 대신하여 피보험자가 전문업무의 수행 중의 오류 및 탈루에 기인한 법률적 손해배상금을 지급합니다. 단, 보험기간 동안의 오류 및 탈루에 기인하여 피보험자에게 최초 제기된 손해배상청구로서, 문서화된 청구서류가 보험기간 중에 보험사에 접수된 경우에 한합니다. II. 방어비용, 합의, 기타비용 보험사는 보험조건에 따라 다음과 같이 합니다. (A) 피보험자의 이름으로 그리고 피보험자를 대신하여 피보험자에 대해 제기된 손해배상금을 위한 소송을 방어합니다. 설사 그러한 소송이 근거없고, 거짓이며 사기적이라 할지라도 그러합니다. 그러나 보험사는 급박하다고 판단될 경우 손해배상청구를 조사하거나 협의할 권리를 가집니다. 면책조항 보상조건 I, II는 다음에 대하여 적용하지 않습니다. (C) 보험개시일 이전에 행한 과실에 기인한 것으로, 다른 보험으로 담보받을 수 있는 경우나 피보험자가 동 과실이 배상청구의 원인이 될 것을 인지하였거나 인지 가능한 손해배상청구. 보험조건 I. 보험기간 및 손해배상청구 조항 본 보험증권은, 피보험자의 전문업무수행 중의 오류 및 탈루에 기인한 것으로, 보험기간 중에 최초로 제기된 손해배상청구에 적용되며, 손해배상청구 관련 통지가 서면으로 보험기간 중에 보험사에 접수된 경우에만 적용됩니다. 만약 보험기간 중에 본 보험증권 하에서 피보험자에 대해 제기될 가능성이 있는 오류 및 탈루를 서면으로 통지한 경우, 추후 그러한 오류 및 탈루를 이유로 제기되는 손해배상청구는 그러한 손해배상청구 관련 서면 서류가 접수된 증권기간 중에 손해배상청구가 최초로 제기된 것으로 간주합니다.

(c) Occurrence, etc. of insurance accidents;

1) On February 14, 2014, the Financial Supervisory Service (Korea Securities and Futures Commission) against the Plaintiff, as a result of the supervision of the audit report on the 13th (from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012) of the Digital Text Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “dix”) audited by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and its affiliated certified public accountants (Nonindicted 7 and Nonparty 8) were verified to have violated the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies and the Standards for Accounting Audit (hereinafter “instant sanctions”) on the ground that they were in violation of the said Act and the Standards for Accounting Audit, etc., taken measures falling under Class II by gross negligence (50% of the audit remuneration for the 2012-year audit remuneration for the saiddix that was received or intended to be received from dixx), set aside additional 50% of the audit remuneration for the saiddix as the joint compensation fund, and three years (3 years) years (from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016).

2) From May 9, 2014, shareholders of DNA filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the occurrence of an insured incident in relation to the damages lawsuit filed against the DNA shareholders (hereinafter “instant insurance accident”), and notified the Defendant of the occurrence of an additional damages lawsuit on each day indicated below as the notification date.

On May 29, 2014, May 29, 2014, including Nonparty 1, etc., Seoul Central District Court 2014da51636, May 2015, 2015, on June 3, 2014, 2014, including Nonparty 2, the Seoul Central District Court 2014da5186846, May 29, 2014; 2015da2015da2060, 2060, January 19, 2015, including Nonparty 3, etc., of the Seoul Central District Court 2015Da5147366, Feb. 4, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 12874, Feb. 15, 2015>

3) On September 3, 2014, the Defendant sent the instant insurance contract to the Plaintiff on September 3, 2014, based on Articles 651 and 655 of the Commercial Act because the Defendant did not have any liability to compensate under the exemption clause (C) in relation to the instant insurance accident, and the Plaintiff breached its duty of disclosure, and thus, the Defendant terminated the instant insurance contract based on Articles 651 and 655 of the Commercial Act, and that time reached the Plaintiff

D. Progress of the preceding lawsuit

1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to confirm that the termination of the instant insurance contract is null and void as Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap582269, and against which, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff to confirm that there is no insurance payment obligation of the Defendant under the instant insurance contract relating to the instant damages lawsuit. The said court did not have the effect of terminating the instant insurance contract on September 2, 2016, but determined that the Defendant’s liability to pay the insurance money is void pursuant to the exemption clause (C) of the instant terms and conditions, and sentenced to a judgment citing both the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim.

2) As to this, only the Plaintiff filed an appeal with Seoul High Court (Main Office), 2016Na2062857 (Counterclaim), 2016Na2062864 (Counterclaim), and the part on the claim of the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive. On April 27, 2017, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the part on the counterclaim in the judgment of the first instance and dismissing the Defendant’s counterclaim. The said judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on May 17, 2017.

E. Attorney fees paid by the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff appointed an attorney-at-law to respond to each of the damages lawsuits in this case, and disbursed a total of KRW 675,478,683 as indicated below at the expense of the attorney-at-law.

On July 1, 2014 165,00,000,00 on September 22, 2014, 2014; 3.22,000,00 on March 13, 2015; 22,000,00 on March 23, 2015; 5.22,00,00 on May 22, 2015; 16,00,00 on May 22, 20, 200 on May 22, 2015; 169,7, 2437; 22,218, 218, 200 on April 22, 2016; and

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, evidence 7-1 to 5, evidence 8-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 575,478,683 won, excluding 100 million won per accident, excluding the amount deducted from 100 million won, which is the amount deducted from 675,478,683 won in total equivalent to the defense costs in the damages lawsuit of this case which was filed or deemed to have been filed against the plaintiff within the insurance period of the insurance contract of this case.

2) As to the starting point of damages for delay, the Plaintiff claims for delay damages from the day following the day on which the Plaintiff paid attorney’s fees. The terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract do not provide for the payment of insurance proceeds, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the payment of insurance proceeds. As seen earlier, Articles 658 and 657(1) of the Commercial Act shall apply to the payment period. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the occurrence of the instant insured events before May 29, 2014. However, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff submitted the details and data on the disbursement of the defense costs to determine the insurance amount before the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that damages for delay of the instant insurance proceeds accrue from November 29, 2016 when the duplicate of the instant complaint was delivered to the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages in excess of this is without merit.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion

1) Claim on the reason for exemption

Although the defendant asserts that he is exempted from the defendant's liability to pay insurance money in accordance with the exemption clause of this case, in case of a final and conclusive judgment dismissing a claim for confirmation of existence of obligation, the parties cannot make any arguments against the existence of the obligation to pay insurance money in accordance with res judicata, and the court cannot make any decision inconsistent with this clause (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da24791, 24807, Jun. 26, 2008), this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) Claim on the scope of the obligation to pay insurance proceeds

The defendant asserts that the insurance money is payable only to the attorney's fees within the scope stipulated in the Rules on the Calculation of Litigation Costs, or that the plaintiff's payment of the insurance money takes place only to the remainder except value-added tax from the attorney's fees paid by the plaintiff. However, there is no ground to view that the scope of the payment of insurance money is limited as alleged by the defendant under the terms of the insurance contract of this case and there is no ground to recognize

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 575,478,683 won with insurance proceeds under the insurance contract of this case and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 15% per annum from December 9, 2016 to June 1, 2017, which is the date of this decision, which is appropriate to dispute the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to perform.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Young-chul(Presiding Judge)