Defendant

According to the consistent statement of H in part H with respect to A, Defendant A may recognize the fact that Defendant A had the victim I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Company”) affix his/her corporate seal impression to the written agreement between H and the Defendant on April 25, 2008 in order to guarantee H’s personal debt.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by rejecting the H’s statement solely on the basis of the statements in the separate civil litigation case, Defendant A’s employee.

In addition, the lower court determined that the Defendant A’s act of affixing his corporate seal impression upon H’s signature and sealing his corporate seal imprint on the written agreement was unreasonable as a factual act after the completion of the breach of trust, but the act of affixing his corporate seal imprint should be deemed as a series of acts of breach of trust connected to the act of signing as the representative director.

The court below cannot see that the victim company suffered damage.

However, based on the agreement written by Defendant A’s breach of trust, Defendant B filed a civil lawsuit against the victim company and received KRW 2.5 billion, so actual damage was incurred to the victim company.

Defendant

Defendant B, while continuously and actively demanding H to guarantee the victim company’s guarantee, would not sell shares without accepting such demand.

As a result, H made the victim company guarantee the agreement.

This had no intention of breach of trust.

H has had the intention of breach of trust and proceed to the execution, and actively participated in the act of breach of trust.

For these reasons, Defendant B had the victim company guaranteed the personal debt of H, and received KRW 2.5 billion by filing a civil lawsuit against the victim company based on this.