A. The description of the claim is as indicated in the annexed sheet of claim(s) and “the changed cause of claim(s).”

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. On July 4, 2007, the Industrial Bank of Korea concluded a transfer security agreement with the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on the following (hereinafter “instant machinery”) by granting facility funds to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”).

Defendant 1, an executive or employee of the Bank of Korea, and other employees of the Bank of Korea, knew of the fact that the Plaintiff, etc., 1300T PPEP RES 2 - 300T SING 2 150T PRES - 150- 3 LCEVVL - 40S 40S - 40 U.S. - 4 NCEAL CRL 403 - 5 U.S. - 5 U.S. 103 - 5 U.S. 200 - 00 20 200 - 0 20 20 - 0 10 10 10 - 7 10 10 - 10 - 5 10 - 10 -2 5 10 -2 10 -2 5 -2 10 -2 30 -2.

Since the ownership of the instant machinery was transferred in trust to the Industrial Bank of Korea, Defendant D et al.’s disposal of the instant machinery without permission constitutes a tort against the Industrial Bank of Korea.

On August 2013, the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred to the Plaintiff the right to claim damages corresponding to the sales price of the instant machinery against Defendant D.

However, as Nonparty E, etc. paid to the Plaintiff KRW 155,00,000, out of the money disposed of of the instant machine, Defendant D is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 95 million and damages for delay.

B. The Industrial Bank of Korea is determined by Defendant D’s intentional or negligent sale of the instant machinery with Nonparty E, etc.