A. On July 9, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were the insured Credit Union B (hereinafter “B”) and the Defendant’s working division (office) at the time of the Defendant, who was a new consulting employee, was a general manager.

The amount of insurance coverage was KRW 100,000, and the insurance period was from July 26, 2010 to July 25, 2012 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The terms and conditions applicable to the said insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract terms and conditions”) are as follows:

[General Terms and Conditions of Guarantee Insurance] Article 1 (Compensation for Damages) 1 (Liability) our Company (Plaintiff) is bound to compensate for the matters set forth in the insurance policy and the terms and conditions of this Agreement, which are the direct property damage suffered by the insured (including damage suffered by the insured due to his legal liability for damages due to the above reasons) by taking advantage of his/her position in the course of carrying out the business on behalf of the insured, or by committing larceny, robbery, fraud, embezzlement or breach of trust during the insurance period.

B. On December 11, 2013, the Defendant was convicted of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the separate sheet (U.S. District Court 2013Gohap1177). Accordingly, the Defendant appealed (U.S. District Court 2013No6535), but the Defendant’s conviction was maintained on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant’s appeal (Supreme Court 2014Do10897) was dismissed on January 15, 2015.

(hereinafter the above criminal judgment is collectively referred to as “instant criminal judgment”). C.

On the other hand, the victim C of the embezzlement crime committed by the Defendant, which was recognized in the instant criminal judgment, has embezzled the amount of KRW 150 million against the Defendant and B, after opening the account in the name of C following the following: (a) the Defendant, who was the executive director of B new consultation, embezzled the amount of KRW 150 million; and (b) the cost of KRW 150 million was incurred due to the failure of the business that began by the Defendant’s solicitation; (c) thus, the sum of KRW 30