1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and the counterclaim are dismissed.

2.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance is as follows: “A 3 and 3” in the 6th of the 6th of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as “A 3 (the Defendant alleged that this document was altered by S, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge this only with the statement of evidence No. 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).” The Plaintiff and the Defendants, except for any addition under the judgment on the argument that the Plaintiff and the Defendants emphasize in particular or unrefilled, shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The provision on retirement benefits for executive officers of this case revised to raise three times the retirement allowances of the plaintiff's alleged executive officers in violation of the plaintiff's articles of incorporation is invalid, since it was revised without the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. The plaintiff did not have obtained a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders as to the payment of remuneration or retirement allowances for executive officers

Nevertheless, H and the Defendants committed an illegal act of accumulating KRW 536,40,832 of the Plaintiff’s profit as the instant retirement trust deposit without filing a report with the Plaintiff’s major shareholder and the representative director and without undergoing a general meeting of shareholders. On January 22, 2008, upon cancelling the instant retirement trust deposit without retirement, H and the Defendants paid three times or more of the existing retirement benefits to H and the Defendants. The Defendants, despite being aware of H’s embezzlement, committed various illegal acts while operating the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants, despite being aware of H’s embezzlement, were liable to compensate the Defendants for the amount exceeding KRW 73,451,640, 104,481,028, Defendant C and Defendant C with KRW 83,288,772, Defendant D and Defendant D with KRW 72,847,464, Defendant D with the obligation to compensate the Defendants for the amount exceeding KRW 67,167,075, respectively.

Even if the defendants' tort is recognized.