2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff leased KRW 2,069,40,800 to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with interest rate of KRW 6.5% per annum, interest rate of KRW 12% per annum, interest rate of KRW 12% per annum, and interest rate of KRW 3,894,357,172.

B. As the actual owner of the non-party company, the Defendant, as a nominal representative director, operated the non-party company under the name of the non-party company E, and embezzled KRW 2,496,910,000 from January 19, 201 to September 6, 2010 by receiving KRW 2,496,910,00 from the funds of the non-party company under the name of the non-party company as the bank account in the name of the non-party company or its spouse

Therefore, the non-party company has a claim for damages or a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant for embezzlement and a tort equivalent to damages for delay.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as a creditor of the loan against the non-party company, demanded the Defendant to pay the above damage claim or the amount equivalent to the claim for return of unjust enrichment.

2. Determination as to whether the Defendant’s Intervenor’s principal safety defense (the existence of a preserved claim against the obligee’s subrogation lawsuit)

A. The gist of this defense is that the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the non-party company are invalid as follows. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it constitutes a creditor subrogation lawsuit for which the right to preserve is not recognized.

1) A monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company is null and void inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s lending of funds to Nonparty Company in order to avoid corporate tax to be imposed upon the Plaintiff’s direct transfer of funds to the company run by the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company constitutes a false agreement or a false indication of intention in order to allow the Plaintiff to pay the funds to the company run by the Plaintiff. 2) The said monetary loan agreement is null and void as it was concluded by the nominal representative E without the Defendant’s consent

3.