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

However, the Seoul Central District Court found that the contract for the supply of the equipment and technology in this case was invalid because it was not for the actual supply of equipment and technology when it was convicted of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against B by 2014No2253.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant equipment to the Plaintiff in accordance with the invalidity of the instant equipment and technology supply contract. From May 2012, ELPus was unable to deliver the instant equipment by arbitrarily disposing of the instant equipment on the grounds of the Defendant’s prolonged default of charges for the use of the IDC Center around May 2012.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 470,000,000 after deducting the amount of KRW 30,000,000 already paid from the market price of the instant equipment at KRW 5,00,000.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. From December 4, 2008 to December 4, 2011, C served as the representative director of the Plaintiff. B, along with C, was practically in operation with C, and was appointed as the Plaintiff’s internal director from September 12, 2012.

B. On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant and B to supply the instant equipment and technology to the Defendant with the following content:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”). In order to promote the Defendant’s electronic financial business (hereinafter referred to as “new business”) between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, project manager B, a written agreement relating to the Defendant’s new business shall be concluded as follows:

-the defendant will proceed under this Agreement through Article 2 (Definition of New Business);