1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) C and D filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the Plaintiff on December 13, 2007 (Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap10997). The cause and progress of the lawsuit are as follows. [The cause of the claim in Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap109977] Defendant (the Plaintiff in this case) (referring to the Plaintiff).

Within this title: hereinafter the same shall apply.

(E) From April 2, 2001 to March 2002, 2002, Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “E”).

A) A person who serves as the representative director of the E, or substantially managed E. The Defendant solicited the purchase of E’s shares by inducing the minority shareholders to purchase the E’s shares by means of false disclosure of important facts, such as the subscription for new shares and the purpose of investment. From July 2001 to October 2001, the Defendant embezzled KRW 31,910,638,421 of the E capital as the refund of the investment amount to the separate company investors. Although the Defendant’s embezzlement significantly aggravated the financial structure of E due to the Defendant’s embezzlement, the Defendant concealed this content through window dressing accounting and made a false public announcement as if the foreign company invested its capital in E. However, the aforementioned false public announcement, embezzlement, and false public announcement were rapidly known to the outside, and the price of E’s share price sharply decreased, and the disposition of suspension of stock trading was issued from March 7, 2002 to the stocks, and eventually, the said shares were delisted on July 7, 2002.

Within this title: hereinafter the same shall apply.

at the time of the suspension of trading the minimum amount of damages equivalent to the “amount obtained by deducting the closing price on the first day of the reorganization trading due to delisting from the lowest closing price among the shares at the time of the suspension of trading, multiplied by the number of stocks.”

Therefore, pursuant to Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act and Article 401-2(1)1 and 2 of the Commercial Act, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiffs, who are shareholders, for the above damages due to directors' liability to a third party or tort liability under the Civil Act.