1. Defendant C shall pay to Plaintiff A KRW 56,900,000, and KRW 10,000,000 to Plaintiff B and each of the above amounts.

1. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant C

A. Indication 1 of the claim 1) Defendant C is the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “A”).

(2) As an employee of the Plaintiff, the Defendant C is liable to pay the Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 56.9 million for damages incurred by the said tort, including the total amount of KRW 56.9 million (the sales proceeds of sea mar vehicles, KRW 40.4 million for the sales proceeds of the sea mar vehicles, KRW 40.4 million for the sales proceeds of the sea mar vehicles, KRW 16.5 million for the sales proceeds of the string vehicles).

3) Meanwhile, Plaintiff B, as the representative director of Plaintiff A, was seriously seriously shocked due to Defendant C’s above illegal act, and thereby, suffered from mental suffering, and thus, Defendant C seek payment of consolation money of KRW 10 million. B. Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act (ab) are Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims against defendant D

A. On May 10, 2016, Plaintiff A’s summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion concluded a financial guarantee agreement under which Defendant C would guarantee the liability to compensate for damages incurred by Defendant C to the Plaintiff Company or other person when Defendant C intentionally or negligently inflicted property damage on the Plaintiff Company or other person by intention or negligence during the period of work for Plaintiff C. As such, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C to pay the damages or consolation money to the Plaintiffs.

B. We examine whether the financial guarantee agreement has been concluded between the plaintiff A and the defendant D, and the plaintiff No. 4 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and the plaintiff No. 5 No. 2, which seems consistent with this, is hard to believe in light of the relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine the remaining points.

3. Thus, the plaintiffs' conclusion is as to defendant C.