1. Defendant B, C, and D: (a) KRW 1,000,000,000 for each Plaintiff; and (b) as to the amount of KRW 2012 for each Plaintiff

5.1. From 1. to 2.0, Defendant B and C.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties is one of the KOSDAQ-listed companies primarily responsible for game software and services. (2) Defendant B actually operated “F” of a personal business entity that imports and sells English teaching materials, while serving as the representative director of G Co., Ltd (hereinafter “G”) from October 21, 201 to July 201, the Plaintiff took overall charge of accounting and financial affairs, including the operation and execution of the company’s funds.

3) From November 201 to May 17, 2012, Defendant C served as the vice president of Defendant B’s personal business chain F, from March 2012 to August 2013, and was in charge of overall management of educational publishing business, such as planning of business related to the purchase and sale of books from March 2011 to August 17, 201, and concluding contracts, etc., with G’s representative director from around September 2012 to November 2012, and thereafter, as a sole director, Defendant D had overall control over the education publishing business.

5) Defendant E is the representative of H, a book company, H. B. (B) Defendant B, C, and D’s public invitation and allocation of roles. (1) The Plaintiff introduced Defendant D, a representative director of the Plaintiff, I’s relationship with the Plaintiff, and introduced Defendant C, etc. through the introduction of Defendant D, an outside director of the said company, to distribute English teaching materials used by private teaching institutes equipped with school or educational facilities, and to produce new educational functional content and procure them in the educational market (hereinafter “instant business”).

2. Defendant D, as an outside director of the Plaintiff, did not have any knowledge of, and experience in, English teaching materials, education, and publishing markets in collusion with Defendant B, and with Defendant C that the employee in charge of I and the practical affairs worked for the above Defendant, using the fact that he was in a position to prevent the Plaintiff’s representative director I and the Plaintiff’s representative director I, and thus, did not have any intent or ability to properly conduct the pertinent business.