2. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant B, above KRW 433,987,670, and Defendant B and each of the above KRW 433,987,670.

A. The Plaintiff (former title: Social Welfare Foundation G) is a social welfare foundation. Defendant B, who was in charge of the former director or auditor of the Plaintiff, was a director with the Plaintiff’s power of representation from October 21, 2007 to January 31, 2008, and was in charge of all the Plaintiff’s affairs while representing the Plaintiff. Defendant C, D, and F were those who were in charge of the Plaintiff’s director or the director of social welfare facilities affiliated with the Plaintiff, and Defendant C was in charge of the Plaintiff’s duties as the president of H medical care center, Defendant D was in charge of the I medical care center, and Defendant F was in office as the president of K.

The period in which the Defendants served as director or auditor shall be as specified in the following table:

B from October 15, 2001 to October 15, 2004, a director (standing on October 15, 2001) from October 21, 2004 to October 21, 2006, an auditor from October 21, 2007 to January 31, 2008, a director (representative) from May 9, 2000 to February 29, 2008, a director D on December 12, 200 to February 12, 2008 (standing on December 12, 200 to February 12, 2008), a director from October 21, 200 to October 21, 204 to October 21, 204; and a director from February 21, 200 to May 201 to 21, 207.

B. The Defendants conspired and embezzled the Plaintiff’s property. Accordingly, Defendant B, C, and D was convicted of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by the Seoul Southern District Court 2008 Gohap92 on May 22, 2008. The Defendants and the public prosecutors appealed against the above judgment. However, the Seoul High Court found the Defendants guilty in the first instance judgment on August 20, 2008, and all of the appeals against Defendant C, D’s appeal and the public prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant C, C, and D were dismissed, and the above judgment partially mitigated the Defendant’s appeal against the Defendant. The above judgment became final and conclusive on or around the 28th of the same month because both the Defendants and the public prosecutor filed an appeal (hereinafter “related criminal judgment”), and the part of the Defendants’ criminal facts finalized in the relevant criminal judgment are as follows.