1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 107,613,741 as well as 5% per annum from September 14, 2016 to September 10, 2019.

1. Claim against the defendant B

(a)the reasons for the attachment to the indication of the claim and the changed reasons for the claim;

(b) Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment deeming confessions to be made

2. Claim against Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

A. Basic facts (1) The Defendant Company is a legal entity that received a contract for the maintenance and repair of the C High-speed Railroad from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant B is a person who takes charge of safety education and safety management at the site by leading the employees belonging to the Defendant Company as the first team leader of the D Section, High-speed Railroad Repair Work.

(2) On September 13, 2016, between 01:00 and 04:30, the Defendants’ line maintenance and repair works (i.e., the recovery of horse gravel) were scheduled at the vicinity of the top line 226 km between E Station and F Station. However, on September 12, 2016, there was an earthquake at around 19:4 (i) and 20:32 (ii) around 19:4 on September 12, 2016, and 20:32 on (i) the area of the Ganbuk racing. Accordingly, there was a situation in which 95 trains were delayed and operated.

(3) The detailed circumstance behind the instant accident occurred shall replace the criminal facts under the final conviction of Defendant B in the relevant criminal case (Tgugu District Court Decision 2017Kadan1558).

Defendant B was delivered at an open meeting at the office of the Korea Railroad Corporation D, located in G on September 12, 2016, at around 22:30, that the above office of the Korea Railroad Corporation D, could delay work due to an earthquake from H in the facility management office of the facility management office H. On September 13, 2016, the above office of the Korea Railroad Corporation, but at around 00:40, at around September 13, 2016, the above office of the facility management office of the Korea Railroad Corporation delayed the KTX train, and there was a high possibility that the above KTX train had not yet passed the above work section, so even though it was necessary to clarify whether the possibility of the KTX train passed through the above work section, Defendant B did not confirm it from the above H and did work to 10 victims, i.e., the affiliated employee.