1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,498,360 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 27, 2015 to April 25, 2017.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 5, evidence set forth in subparagraph 1, and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. The Plaintiff is a person who served as the head of the partnership from February 25, 2011 to December 17, 2012 of the B Housing Redevelopment Project Association (hereinafter “Non-Party Partnership”) on the register of the register, and the Defendant entered into a deposit contract with the Non-Party Association and received money from the Non-Party Association.

B. On June 18, 2012, the non-party union registered a corporate seal imprint with the Defendant and opened a common deposit account (Account Number C, hereinafter “instant account”). Around June 18, 2012, the non-party union changed the transaction seal stamp of the instant account into the Plaintiff’s corporate seal impression, the Plaintiff’s corporate seal impression, and the E (auditor at the time of Nonparty union’s audit)’s seal impression, and allowed the Defendant to withdraw the said three deposits from the said account, and again, the same year.

8. Around June, 2012, the Plaintiff changed the transaction seal impression of the said account to the Nonparty’s corporate seal impression and D’s seal impression so that the said two personal seal impressions can be withdrawn from the said account. On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant as to the instant account and re-issued the passbook, thereby changing the transaction seal impression of the said account to the Plaintiff’s corporate seal impression. On November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 240,305,268 to the F as service price.

C. Around August 12, 2013, the non-party union filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Defendant seeking compensation, etc. for damages, etc. with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap61775. On July 4, 2014, the court of first instance confirmed that “the Plaintiff, as the service contract was null and void in the instant account, remitted the service cost that the non-party union is not obligated to pay to the non-party union to F, and caused damages equivalent to the same amount to the non-party union. The Defendant knew or could have known that the reasons for the registration of the non-party union’s multiple seal impression was to prevent the embezzlement of the president of the association.