1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 656,011,723 to the Plaintiff, as well as the period from September 3, 2014 to July 21, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company that carries out a credit card transaction approval agency service business (VN and Val-Aded Network) service provider. Defendant B actually carried out broadband and E and F, which are service agencies from January 2007, and Defendant C was in charge of the Plaintiff’s business operation and agency management, etc. from June 2001 to September 201, and Defendant C was in charge of the Plaintiff’s business operation and agency management, etc. while working in the Plaintiff’s corporate business team, from June 2001 to September 2012, 201. Meanwhile, Defendant D is the G operator of the sales agency; and H was in charge of the Plaintiff’s business operation and management of the franchise store from August 2, 200 to September 2012.

B. A broadband service refers to the service of building and providing a network and collecting and storing sales slips by conveying credit card, cash receipts, etc. to credit card companies or the National Tax Service to settle the settlement information of the franchise store with credit card companies or the National Tax Service.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Defendant C and H were liable for damages of the Defendants) around May 2009 to provide money and valuables to the former managing director J of I who provided assistance in extending the bareboat service contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Company I (hereinafter “I”) in the course of performing their duties as above at the Plaintiff Company.

B) Accordingly, Defendant C on the ground of the false business agency of G, which was known to H through the introduction of Defendant B around May 18, 2009, on the ground of the false business agency of G, which was known to H, on the ground of the fact that G did not play any role in the extension of the broadband service contract in G, even though G did not play any role in relation to the extension of the broadband service contract, and that G contributed to the extension of the contract in G, thereby promoting the business of the K Group, to which I belongs, 10

“The Plaintiff and G representative whose contents are written.”