1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by an independent party intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who was the representative director of an independent party intervenor (hereinafter “independent party intervenor”), embezzled the funds of KRW 2.927.6 million of the independent party intervenor on six occasions from December 29, 2006 to June 15, 2007.

B. On June 4, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note causing three billion won per face value (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to an independent party intervenor in order to secure the obligation to compensate for damages amounting to KRW 2.92 billion against an independent party intervenor (hereinafter “the instant obligation to compensate for damages”). On June 5, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) on the part of an independent party intervenor as stated in the purport of the claim.

C. On November 11, 2009, an independent party intervenor transferred the secured debt of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage to the Defendants, and completed the supplementary registration of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage as to the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage to the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon Registry, Incheon District Court No. 51949, Nov. 12, 2009.

1) The independent party intervenor filed a lawsuit claiming damages of KRW 1 billion against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff embezzled the funds of KRW 2.927.6 billion of the independent party intervenor. On February 16, 2012, the above court rendered a dismissal ruling on the ground that the instant damages liability was extinguished in full due to repayment. (2) The independent party intervenor appealed against the above judgment and appealed Seoul High Court 2012Na28235, but the above court rendered a dismissal ruling on the ground that the independent party intervenor did not extinguish the damages claim of KRW 1.692.6 billion of the instant damages claim of this case to the Defendants, but the said court rendered a dismissal ruling on the ground that the independent party intervenor transferred the damages claim against the Plaintiff to the Defendants.

3. The independent party intervenor appealed to the above appellate judgment and appealed to the Supreme Court 2013Da48029, but the Supreme Court sentenced the dismissal of appeal to the Supreme Court.

(e).