1. Defendant A, B, and D are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 67,107,422 and Defendant A, and D are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

1. The description of the claim is as shown in the annexed sheet of claim.

2. Judgment on deemed confessions as to the claim against Defendant A, B, and D (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. In determining the claim against Defendant C, the liability for damages against a third party by a director of a stock company under Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act is the requirement that the director neglects his/her duties by intention or gross negligence. The failure to perform his/her duties refers to neglecting the company’s duties. The mere failure to perform the company’s obligations due to an ordinary transaction cannot be said to have neglected the company’s duties intentionally or by gross negligence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da47316 Decided March 29, 2002). Regarding the instant case, the Plaintiff produced Module 10,000 which is a non-alternative product under a product supply contract with the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”); the Defendant Company refused to accept the remaining goods upon delivery of 20 million goods; the Plaintiff delivered the above 8,000 goods to the Defendant Company’s office; the Defendant Company did not pay to the Plaintiff the above 8,00 goods; the fact that the Defendant Company is a director of the Defendant Company is not a dispute between the parties; or the fact that the Defendant Company is a director of the Defendant Company may be recognized by each statement of Gap 1-10 (including a serial number attached); however, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant C neglected to perform its duties as a director of the Defendant Company and caused damage to the Plaintiff due to failure to obtain the above 8,00 goods.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above assertion.

4. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant company, B, and D is justified. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant company, B, and D is dismissed as it is without merit.