1. The Defendants are 5% per annum from November 4, 2014 to December 19, 2014, respectively, to each Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 20, 2001, the Plaintiff selected Defendant Company C as an operator of the Defendant Company C, and entered into a C Operation Agreement with the period of the agreement until December 31, 2012. The main contents of the agreement are as follows.

Article 1 (Purpose) The Convention aims to determine matters to be observed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company for the efficient operation of C and to clarify the limits of bilateral responsibilities.

Article 6 (Subsidies) (1) The plaintiff shall subsidize the following operating expenses according to the operation of C within budgetary limits:

1. Personnel expenses (two vehicle engineers, one person in charge of reservation, and guides for tourist guidance);

2. Operating expenses for vehicles (oil expenses, insurance premiums, vehicle painting, parking expenses, and vehicle maintenance expenses);

3. Operational expenses (management and reorganization, etc.), inspection expenses for certified public accountants, and publicity materials of the website;

4. Other operating expenses approved by the defendant company in consultation with the plaintiff.

B. In accordance with the above agreement, the Plaintiff decided to grant Defendant Company KRW 700,000 to purchase the second-story bus in 2009 as subsidies each year, and provided that a certain amount of subsidies should not be used for other purposes pursuant to Article 11 of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies.

C. However, from April 4, 2005 to February 1, 2011, Defendant B, the representative director of the Defendant Company, was convicted of the total amount of KRW 19,957,768, out of subsidies granted by the Plaintiff under the name of program operation expenses, promotion expenses, etc., as well as the above agreement, municipal ordinances, and the terms and conditions of delivery, on the grounds that the crime of embezzlement was found to have been committed for the purpose of general operation expenses, etc. of the Defendant Company, and was found guilty on September 4, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 6, and 7's each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The time limit for the tort;