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

A. The Plaintiff is a company running an advertising business, etc., and the Defendant is a person whose resignation has been registered on July 6, 2012 while working as the representative director of the Plaintiff on July 28, 201.

B. On December 30, 2011, the Plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 257,769,265 to the Defendant, and managed the accounts with the president of the account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 5 and 6 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obligated to refund the provisional payment amount of KRW 257,769,265 and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

In addition, since the defendant conspireds or aided with respect to the embezzlement or fraud of C, which is the actual manager of the plaintiff, or violated the duty of care as the representative director, property damage was caused to the plaintiff.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the above provisional payment, which is a part of the above property damages.

3. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff actually paid the provisional payment of KRW 257,769,265 on December 30, 201 by itself, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the primary claim, is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff actually paid the provisional payment of KRW 257,769,265 to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the provisional payment.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff actually paid the above provisional payment to the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) evidence Nos. 5, 10, 11, and evidence Nos. 11 through 6, and the witness D’s testimony and the entire purport of the pleading.

The plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

C from February 16, 2011 to the same year

7. Until December 28, 200, the plaintiff worked as the representative director, and thereafter the defendant was appointed as the successor representative director.

However, the defendant is only registered in the corporate register as a nominal representative director, and C actually operated the plaintiff even after the defendant's appointment.