1. Defendant B:

(a) KRW 3,00,000 and for this, 5% per annum from October 9, 2012 to February 18, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs an advertising business under the trade name of “D,” and Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) also runs an advertising business, and Defendant B is a director of the Defendant Company.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant Company agreed to allow the Defendant Company to run the advertisement along with the advertising business from December 2009 to January 5, 2012, and to produce the Plaintiff’s advertisement, and to reflect the net profit.

The following shall be paid KRW 60,000,000 (the representative director B of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.) from the creditor [D representative director A] without molding KRW 10,000,000 from the creditor [D representative director A] and KRW 50,000,000 on March 23, 2010.

The principal shall be repaid until March 23, 2012, and the interest shall be repaid retroactively from the date of the repayment of the principal to nine percent of the principal.

A debtor on March 18, 2010: A principal lawsuit of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd.: D representative director A (Official Seal): 610 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building 610

B. Upon Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff wired KRW 10 million to Defendant B’s account on January 25, 2010 and March 18, 2010, respectively, and KRW 60 million on March 23, 2010, and the total amount of KRW 60 million on March 18, 2010, upon the Plaintiff’s request that it lend money. To prove this, on March 18, 2010, the Plaintiff drafted the following: (a) the borrowing certificate (Evidence 2); (b) the borrowing date (Evidence 2); and (c) the filing date of the borrowing certificate (Evidence 2) as follows.

C. From July 19, 2010 to September 19, 201, Defendant B did not pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 20,175,00,00, which is the Plaintiff’s share, even though Defendant B received advertising fees from an advertiser several times.

Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for occupational embezzlement due to some of his acts.

(Seoul Southern District Court 2014No1037). D.

After the completion of the advertising business with the Plaintiff, Defendant B kept the Plaintiff’s office in custody. However, on May 19, 2012, the Plaintiff was deemed to have immediately left the Plaintiff’s office, and the Plaintiff was in dispute and was able to hear the Plaintiff’s desire, Defendant B’s treatment for about four weeks is required.