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

A. The Plaintiff’s establishment background 1) The Defendant operated the “C” of a personal business chain around 2009, and around February 2016, as well as D (hereinafter “D”).

2) The Defendant established the Plaintiff that only the name of the Company “A” while maintaining the transaction partners, obligation obligations, business facilities, etc. of D and managing D as one company due to tax in arrears.

B. The Plaintiff’s criminal complaint and charge of the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement 1) asserted that “the Defendant embezzled KRW 142,823,410 by arbitrarily using the Plaintiff’s corporate card or arbitrarily withdrawing money from the Plaintiff’s corporate account” and filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant (Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office 2017 Punishment No. 5300, 201). However, on January 17, 2018, the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff in mixed use without settling accounts separately from corporate funds and personal funds from the Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office of Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office (Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office 2017 punishment No. 5300, 2017), but the Defendant was not subject to a disposition of non-prosecution on the ground that “It is difficult to recognize that the Defendant used corporate funds with the intent of embezzlement in view of the fact that the Defendant entirely dealt with

Since then, the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the non-prosecution disposition and filed an appeal with the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office No. 2018 High Prosecutor's Office (Seoul High Prosecutor's Office). However, the prosecutor's appeal was dismissed on June 28, 2018.

C. The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint and suspected charge against the Defendant’s criminal complaint, asserting that “In spite of the Defendant’s retirement around June 16, 2017, the Defendant invadedd the Plaintiff’s office house from around 08:00 to around 20:00 on July 16, 2017 and obstructed the Plaintiff’s business, thereby interfering with the Plaintiff’s business.” However, on November 15, 2017, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, who was the de facto representative director, invaded the Defendant’s entry into the company’s office, was not the Defendant’s goods.