1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 298,638,545 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 14, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

(a) Indication of request: Attached Form;

1. The description of the cause of the claim;

(b) Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. While Defendant B kept the company’s funds in the Plaintiff’s account without the Plaintiff’s consent, he embezzled KRW 70,073,033 by transferring the total amount of KRW 70,03,033 to the Defendant C’s account under the Plaintiff’s name. Defendant C was paid KRW 22,701,145 in the monthly wage form even if he was not an employee of the Plaintiff.

Defendant C embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds in collusion with Defendant B, and even if not, Defendant C assisted Defendant C to use his account despite having known or could have known that Defendant C embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay the above KRW 92,774,178 (=70,073,033 KRW 22,701,145) as compensation for damages arising from unjust enrichment or tort.

B. In full view of the overall purport of each entry and pleading in the Plaintiff’s name, Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including serial numbers), the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s name from June 11, 2009 to May 15, 2012 is attached to the Plaintiff’s first bank account in the Plaintiff’s name.

2. Although it is acknowledged that the sum of KRW 92,774,178, as stated in the statement, was transferred, the fact of the above recognition and the result of each order to submit financial transaction information to the Bank and Busan Bank, the fact-finding conducted by Defendant C in collusion with Defendant B on the basis of the fact-finding with regard to the National Police Agency of this Court.

The Plaintiff’s above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant C aided and aided Defendant B’s embezzlement of funds by using his account to Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is without merit.

3. Defendant D Co., Ltd.