1. Defendant B and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C jointly and severally notify the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) of KRW 11,215,237 and the amount thereof.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff worked as the head of the technical team of Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (the representative E; hereinafter referred to as the “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”), and was in charge of supervision and settlement of the price with respect to the partner company requested to open Internet affairs, etc. from the non-Party Co., Ltd.

B. The Defendants, as married couple on December 23, 2009, registered the business in the name of Defendant C with the trade name “F” and received a request from the Nonparty Company for the opening of Internet services, etc.

C. Around April 2013, Nonparty Company discovered the embezzlement of the Plaintiff’s proceeds, etc., and discovered the embezzlement by imposing an audit, and on July 17, 2013, Nonparty Company received a provisional attachment order of KRW 25750,000,000 for the claim amounting to KRW 1501,000,000,000 owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff retired from Nonparty Company around July 22, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 3, 11 evidence, witness E, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the main claim

A. (1) With respect to the claim for loans against Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s principal assertion (A) on January 8, 2010, lent KRW 5 million to Defendant B, and the above Defendant is obligated to return the principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff.

(B) Defendant B’s assertion was paid KRW 5 million as a subsidy at the time of commencement of the business as a cooperation company of Nonparty B, not borrowed.

(2) According to the fact that there is no dispute over the sales market, the Plaintiff transferred five million won to the Defendant B’s account on January 8, 2010, according to the entries in Gap’s evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings.

However, it is not sufficient to accept the above five million won only by examining whether the plaintiff lent the above five million won or not, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. (1) Facts that there is no dispute as to the claims for loans against the Defendants, the entries in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 5, and 6, and arguments are made.