1. Defendant C and D shall jointly:

A. As to KRW 26,880,000 among the Plaintiff A and KRW 6,00,000 among them, Plaintiff A shall be subject to the disposition of KRW 26,80,000.

1. The following facts are acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 21, Eul evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

가. 원고 A 주식회사(이하 ‘원고 A’이라 한다)와 원고 B 주식회사(이하 ‘원고 B’이라 한다)는 모두 토목건축공사업 등을 영위하는 회사로서 울산 소재 원고 A 사무실에서 사실상 하나의 회사로 운영되어 왔다.

B. From March 11, 2011 to October 15, 2014, Defendant C served as the president of the Plaintiffs when the Plaintiff’s representative director and the Plaintiff’s director under the corporate registry were registered as the Plaintiff’s president. Defendant D served as the Plaintiff’s representative director and the vice president under the corporate registry, while Plaintiff A was registered as the Plaintiff’s director and the Plaintiff’s director under the corporate registry.

C. Defendant E and F are simple siblings with Defendant C, D, and Defendant G are the wife of Defendant C.

The Plaintiffs are companies with the type of Defendant C and D’s management, and H demanded that they retire from the Defendant C in order to obtain management rights for the Plaintiffs on November 2010. Defendant C and D convened the board of directors of Plaintiff C and D on March 11, 201, and resolved to dismiss H from the representative director of Plaintiff B and to appoint Defendant D as the representative director of Plaintiff B, the dispute over the management rights for the Plaintiffs began between H, Defendant C and D.

E. On January 28, 201, H-A-H filed a complaint against the Defendants on the following grounds: “The Plaintiffs’ shares in the Defendant’s name were nominal trust with H; and H demanded the Defendants to return the shares on or around December 8, 2010, but the Defendants refused to return the shares and embezzled it on or around January 5, 201 (hereinafter “the complaint case”); the prosecutor on June 30, 201, stating that “the Plaintiff’s shares did not have any stock certificates issued with respect to the Plaintiff, and the simple shares that are not the stock certificates cannot be the object of embezzlement” against all the Defendants.