2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Defendant B, as a secondary sear employed by the Plaintiff’s “D”, was engaged in the business of purchasing used vehicles from the Plaintiff and selling used vehicles purchased from the Plaintiff.

If Defendant B sells a used vehicle, the amount equivalent to the purchase price, excluding the difference between the sales price, which is one’s own business allowance, and the purchase price, shall be refunded to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant B embezzled total of KRW 344,756,00 through 94 cases as shown in the separate sheet, such as where the amount equivalent to the purchase price was not repaid at all or only a part of the purchase price, and sought damages against Defendant B and the financial guarantee thereof.

B. Defendant B formally belongs to “D” operated by the Plaintiff, but he independently performs its activities. Since Defendant B borrowed the purchase fund for used vehicles from the Plaintiff and paid the principal and the agreed party as well as the agreed party, Defendant B did not have embezzled the Plaintiff’s money.

2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B sold a second class vehicle and embezzled it by not repaying the purchase price or by repaying only a part of the purchase price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 3, it is only recognized that the plaintiff was acquitted of the defendant B in the first instance court of the criminal case (U.S. District Court 2016Da4293, currently pending trial) in which the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant B by occupational embezzlement.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.