1. The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,122,164,664 as well as to the plaintiff.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the statement on the grounds of “1. Presumed facts” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"(unit: US$)" shall be added to 4 pages 14 of the judgment of the first instance.

At the bottom of the 7th judgment of the first instance, the 5th "Plaintiff" shall be raised to "Defendant".

From the 8th side of the judgment of the first instance, the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Offense of Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)" shall be deemed to be the "Offense of Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Offense of Breach of Trust)", and from the 8th to the bottom of the 3rd one.

On the 8th page of the first instance judgment, “the ground for recognition” is added to “the statement of evidence No. 135” (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. Determination

A. From January 207, 2007, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff and C’s joint business and the time of discontinuance of the Plaintiff’s business should bear advance payments for raw material prices and for intra-company subcontracting, that the Plaintiff was in charge of manufacturing, exporting, and distributing export prices, and that the Plaintiff continued to engage in the business not jointly engaged in by manufacturing, exporting, and distributing export prices; and that the Plaintiff continued to engage in the business not jointly engaged until July 7, 2009 after the publication of suspension of production on July 7, 2008, taking into account the following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of the evidence and arguments, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff and C jointly engaged in the business cannot be accepted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, since the plaintiff and C jointly operated the business, the defendant also supported C with the plaintiff's human and physical facilities without just consideration.