1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 13,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 23, 2014 to October 29, 2015.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant B, who was an employee of the Plaintiff, did not have any claim against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff, holding the Plaintiff’s corporate head, thereby constituting the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Etel (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

306 (hereinafter “instant officetel 306”)

() The maximum debt amount of KRW 90,000 is set up as a collateral and received 69,304,110 won as a collateral in the auction procedure regarding the instant officetel 306. Even when considering the amount to be distributed to creditors who have not been more than 100% of the dividend amount, Defendant B was unjustly entitled to KRW 59,115,829. Therefore, Defendant B was obligated to return the said KRW 59,115,829 to the Plaintiff. (2) The Plaintiff, while Defendant B worked in the Plaintiff Company, may be able to gratuitously reside in the instant officetel 3 stories map, 52.50 square meters (hereinafter “part of the instant officetel 3 stories”). Defendant B also demanded the Plaintiff to refuse to comply with the Plaintiff’s order to surrender part of the instant officetel 3 stories.

The Plaintiff, as a delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, expressed his/her intent to terminate a loan agreement for use on part of the third floor of the instant officetel with Defendant B. As such, Defendant B is obligated to issue an order to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the third floor of the instant officetel.

3) Meanwhile, Defendant B received the Plaintiff’s monthly rent of KRW 15 million in F (the instant officetel rent of KRW 101-1, 101-1 of the instant officetel leased to G), but he paid KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff, and embezzled KRW 13 million by arbitrarily consuming it. ② From April 2013 to July 2014, Defendant B, the instant case from EL Plus, Este Telecom, and K.