1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from January 1, 2012 to March 17, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was established on May 14, 2003 as a corporation engaging in the business of manufacturing electronic parts, etc., and the Defendant, as C’s spouse, has pending a claim for divorce, etc. (U.S. District Court 2013Reu2370) between C and the Defendant.

B. The Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s auditor and the substantial manager, was in charge of exporting automobile parts to the reasons for India since 2005, and established a manufacturer, such as automobile parts, with the trade name D around June 2009, where the Plaintiff and C, who actually owned the Plaintiff, have been divorced.

C. From June 22, 2009 to October 22, 2009, the Defendant, in violation of its occupational duty, exported the product's export price of KRW 249,892,800 ($ 208,244), which was imported from the Plaintiff, to KRW 249,892,80,00 ($ 208,244), thereby incurring property loss equivalent to the amount of the export transaction profit to the Plaintiff, and suffered property profit equivalent to the same amount.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant breach of trust”) was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution in the instant case where a criminal offense was prosecuted for an occupational breach of trust (U.S. District Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 2220) and the judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claims as to the occurrence of liability for damages and determination thereof

A. The plaintiff asserts that not only the act of breach of trust in this case, but also the act of export against the defendant in 2010, 2011 constitutes an act of breach of trust against the plaintiff in proximate causal relation with the act of breach of trust in this case.

As to this, the above final judgment is based on C’s malicious statement, and C asserts that the Defendant’s act of breach of trust cannot be seen as an act of breach of trust, such as where it is well known that the Defendant exported the automobile parts to the reason for rejection, and does not take any measures therefor.

B. As to the instant act of breach of trust.