1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 58,840,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the amount from October 16, 2013 to January 12, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 201, the Defendant: (a) registered a company of Hong Kong with the name of D around December 201, as the representative of C, which is a company that produces and distributes intra-systems exclusively used for internal navigation; and (b) established a factory for manufacturing goods exclusively used for vehicle use in Gangseo-gu, the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “instant factory”); and (c) ordered C to manufacture and trade goods in the instant factory in the manner of manufacturing goods and exporting them to C.

B. The Plaintiff, while serving as the general manager of D from the time of the establishment of the instant factory, was engaged in overall management of the factory, manufacturing and supply of products, etc.

C. On October 16, 2013, the Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant to dismiss an employee of Chinese nationality who had worked in the instant plant from the Defendant, and received an order from the Defendant to release all inventory quantities without ordering additional quantities on or around the 15th day of the same month, the Plaintiff considered it as the order to close the instant plant, and decided to arbitrarily remove and dispose of any article (icons) produced and kept in the instant plant from the Defendant, and arbitrarily removed 16,800 bits for exclusive use of vehicle appliances produced and kept in the instant plant from October 16, 2013.

On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff was indicted as a criminal fact under the foregoing paragraph (c) and was convicted of embezzlement for business on July 11, 2016 (Seoul District Court 2015Da7670), and appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on October 24, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. On October 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant factory was closed down by the following methods: (a) the Defendant did not issue an additional production instruction to the instant factory; and (b) requested parts to supply parts to the third factory; and (c) the instant factory was overallized.