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

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

Basic Facts

The rehabilitation procedure (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”) commenced on May 18, 2016 with Suwon District Court 2016 Ma10016 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”) against the Plaintiff, following the issuance of a decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan on December 8, 2016, the rehabilitation procedure was completed on February 15, 2017.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant”) served as the representative director of the Plaintiff since its establishment around December 2, 2004, and retired on March 29, 2016, prior to the commencement of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation procedure.

In the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the defendant filed an application for a final claim inspection judgment (U.S. District Court 2016da835) to determine the amount of rehabilitation claims against the plaintiff 97,058,211,852, including the amount of unpaid remuneration and retirement allowance claims of 522,856,144 won.

On October 11, 2016, the above court rendered a recommendation for reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “recommendation for reconciliation in this case”) with the purport that “the Defendant’s rehabilitation claim against the Plaintiff is KRW 5,635,396,433 (including KRW 5,179,887,500, which has already become final and conclusive by the custodian)” (hereinafter referred to as the “recommendation for reconciliation in this case”) to the effect that “the Defendant’s rehabilitation claim against the Plaintiff is the total amount of KRW 212,467,316, and the amount of KRW 5,380,00,000, and the amount of KRW 42,929,39,00,000, and the amount of KRW 42,929,11

In the past, the Plaintiff entered into a trust agreement on asset management of retirement pension for the management of retirement pension for the executives and employees belonging to the Plaintiff, and accumulated a defined contribution retirement pension for the Defendant by designating the Defendant as the subscriber and beneficiary at the fixed contribution retirement pension account in the name of the Plaintiff during his/her term of office. In the rehabilitation plan approved in the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the indication of the fixed contribution retirement pension account was omitted.

After the completion of the instant rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiff was accumulated at the Seocho-Nam branch of the Industrial Bank of Korea for the Defendant.