1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 196,452,861 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 20, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 2012, Nonparty B, an employee of the Plaintiff Company, entered into a contract with Nonparty 2, a small-scale mold Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) to sell B-PC products.

After that, when a small scale framework has suffered loss related to the relevant business due to the reasons such as the value of supply and sales depression, the small scale framework was requested by the Plaintiff Company to be responsible for the remaining inventories after sale to B. Despite the fact that the business policy of the Plaintiff Company was not returned to the inventory of the sold products, B had arbitrarily written “in conflict with the corporate policy on November 201, 2013,” and B signed B’s personal signature with the content of “A” to be followed by the Plaintiff Company’s later scheduled progress.

B. In March 2014, the smallest framework filed a civil suit against the Plaintiff Company to the effect that the Plaintiff Company will return any remaining inventory from the small framework and simultaneously pay the proceeds thereof.

On January 2014, the Defendant was in charge of the issue of disposal of inventory goods with small socin mold, and deemed that it is possible for the Plaintiff Company, one of the transaction partners of the Plaintiff Company, to file a lawsuit for inventory goods by carrying out projects with the Plaintiff Company. On April 2014, the Plaintiff Company entered into an agreement with the smallest socin framework that “the inventory goods in its possession are sold to the Plaintiff Company (lury) designated by the Plaintiff Company, and the smallest socin framework is withdrawn from the Plaintiff Company’s lawsuit against the Plaintiff Company.” Accordingly, the smallest socin framework sold all inventory goods to the Plaintiff Company on April 2014 (Evidence No. 3).

C. The Defendant’s return agreement against Furas, however, the Plaintiff Company was a business policy that did not return inventory goods.