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

A. The Defendant, around October 18, 2013, held office as the representative director of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and resigned from office as the representative director on May 12, 2014.

B. On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note as of May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s issuer, the par value of KRW 10,000,000, issue date, May 12, 2014, and November 11, 2014. On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted a notary public to prepare a notarial deed on his/her law firm’s freedom, and accordingly, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of promissorysory note No. 257, as a law firm’s freedom.

C. On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note as of May 12, 2014, with the Plaintiff’s issuer, the face value of KRW 10,000,000, issue date, May 12, 2014, and May 11, 2015. On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted the Defendant with the preparation of a notarial deed on the law firm’s freedom, and a notary public, with the intent of recognizing compulsory execution, drafted a notarial deed of promissorysory note No. 258 of 2014 at the law firm’s discretion.

(B) 【No. 1, No. 8, No. 14-1, No. 15-6, No. 15-1, No. 3-2, and No. 3-1, No. 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts as follows as the ground for the claim of this case.

In other words, the defendant is responsible for compensating for damages equivalent to the same amount as B by embezzlement of KRW 176,910,000 while operating B as the representative director of B.

The Plaintiff not only has the right to claim damages against the Defendant as a shareholder and partner B, but also was transferred to the Defendant KRW 30 million out of the damage claim of KRW 176,910,000 against the Defendant.

The plaintiff is based on the notarial deed of this case with the claim of the above amount as the automatic bond.