1. Defendant B’s KRW 28,576,50 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 3, 2015 to December 16, 2015.

1. Around June 3, 2015, Defendant B: (a) purchased articles equivalent to KRW 16,384,50,00 in total, KRW 18,484,50,00 in the market price owned by the Plaintiff, which is equivalent to KRW 16,384,50 in the Plaintiff’s private company’s office (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”); (b) one construction section with the market price of KRW 300,00,00 in total, KRW 18,484,50 in the street North Korean one with the market price of KRW 18,50,00 in total; and (c) Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) purchased them from Defendant B with knowledge of the fact that the Plaintiff was a stolen goods; (d) the Defendants’ act constitutes a joint tort against the Plaintiff; and (c) the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a tort with respect to the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff’s act should have paid damages to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 18484,500,500,5000.

2. Judgment based on the recommendation of confession as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. According to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company, as to whether there was intention or occupational negligence on the part of the Plaintiff at the time when the Defendant Company purchased and acquired the instant drone owned by the Plaintiff Company B, the following facts were examined: (a) the price of the instant drone’s new product was 16,384,500 won at the time of the Plaintiff’s theft; (b) although the Defendant Company asked Defendant Company employees E of the Defendant Company whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant drone’s acquisition, it may be acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not notify the Defendant Company of the acquisition of the fact, even though it was not sufficient to recognize the Defendant Company’s intentional or occupational negligence when acquiring the stolen goods. However, there was no evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, Nos. 1, 7.