2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Status of the parties 1) Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”).

2) The Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”)

Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) as a subsidiary established by Defendant C.

(F) from Company F (hereinafter referred to as “F”).

(2) Defendant D is the vice president of F at the time of acquisition of the said shares and management rights, and Defendant E is the head of F’s research team, and is the technical personnel related to online voting system services (hereinafter “K-voting service”).

B. F’s online voting system services 1) Defendant D’s case (hereinafter “K”) with G institutions

A) Around March 2013, K-voting service project was proposed to G institutions, and K-voting submitted a “online electronic voting service proposal” to the effect that, by providing a platform and applying a patent security technology owned by F-F, it would provide a solution meeting the four principles of election and guidelines for online voting. (ii) K and G institutions entered into an online voting service provision agreement on June 4, 2013, and on October 2, 2013, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 11879, Oct. 2, 2013>

Accordingly, F and K provide K-voing service to G institutions from October 2013.

3) The security technology of this case concerning K-voting service is as follows: (a) the security technology of this case is to ensure the security of electronic ballot boxes by having the user body manager divide and keep the key ballot boxes in installments to several persons.

B) Concrypt the contents of a concealed signature and keep them in an electronic ballot box so as to ensure the secrecy of voting information by storing them in an electronic ballot box. (c) Whether the voting price with a code of non-Delegation (bitcommitt) voting information is either divided into a server and a voter, and whether the voting price has been forged or altered later.