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

A. On July 27, 2010, Busan District Court Decision 2010Kahap409 decided on July 27, 2010, which issued a provisional attachment order against the Plaintiff regarding KRW 127,413,590 as a preserved right.

B. Accordingly, on October 19, 2010, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 127,413,590 for the revocation of the execution of the provisional seizure as the Changwon District Court (Seoul District Court 2010 Geumwon), and thereafter, upon receiving a favorable judgment in a lawsuit claiming a contract deposit amount under the Changwon District Court 2010Kahap7461, the principal case lawsuit, the original case was rendered, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 22, 2014 following an appeal and final appeal, the Plaintiff delegated C, who is an employee of the Defendant A, with the affairs concerning the revocation of the provisional seizure and the application for the withdrawal of the deposit. < Amended by Act No. 12226, Feb. 24, 2014>

C. However, around July 4, 2014, C, with the power of attorney, certificate of corporate seal impression, copy of passbook, etc. issued under the Plaintiff’s name, with intent to arbitrarily use the Plaintiff’s deposit for payment of the Plaintiff’s deposited money, and with intent to pay the Plaintiff’s deposited money. On July 7, 2014, C filed a claim for withdrawal of KRW 131,023,586 (i.e., interest of KRW 127,413,590 on deposited principal - KRW 4,197,666 - income tax of KRW 587,670) with intent to designate the deposit receipt account as one of its new bank accounts (D) and deposited the deposit in the said account and embezzled it for any business purpose from around that time to August 2014.

Meanwhile, both Defendants are certified judicial scrivenerss, and C served as employees of Defendant A from February 12, 2014 to April 9, 2014, and as employees of Defendant B from April 16, 2014 to August 26, 2014.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that C was an employee of Defendant A at the time when the Plaintiff delegated the application for the payment of deposit money, and that at the time of embezzlement, Defendant B’s employee was so, the Defendants were the Plaintiff’s illegal act (Embezzlement).