A. On August 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant B decided to engage in the same business by leasing a gas station located in Haman-Eup, Homan, the Plaintiff and Defendant B started to open a deposit account necessary for the operation of a gas station in the name of Defendant C, as well as to operate the gas station in the name of E (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. In operating the instant gas station, the Plaintiff and Defendant B managed the Plaintiff’s deposit account, and primarily took charge of the Plaintiff’s revenue and expenses from the operation of the gas station, and the Defendant mainly took charge of the sale and delivery of oil, etc., and the dispute arose in relation to the revenue distribution and settlement in the course of operating the gas station.

Therefore, around November 23, 2012, Defendant B brought arbitrarily the tank cromatic vehicles and Defendant C’s deposit passbooks managed by the Plaintiff, and managed the deposit and withdrawal of the deposit account in the name of Defendant C, and actually operated the gas station of this case solely from that time.

After that, on March 26, 2013, Defendant B received and continued to operate the instant gas station under Defendant C’s name through the auction procedure.

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the effect that the Defendants embezzled the Plaintiff’s duty-free oil refund and the sales proceeds of oil. Accordingly, the Defendants’ investigation was conducted against the Defendants. However, Defendant C was subject to a non-prosecution disposition. However, Defendant B was indicted on April 4, 2014 on the following grounds: (a) KRW 65,58,390 out of the refund for duty-free oil sold at the instant gas station; (b) KRW 19,395,390 out of the sales proceeds of the oil; (c) KRW 11,145,05,053 of the sales proceeds of the oil to the farmers; and (d) KRW 12,314,428 of the sales proceeds of the innovative gas station; and (e) KRW 12,314,428 of the sales proceeds to the innovative Development Corporation; and (e) KRW 44,334 liters of the oil 28,340,560 of the market price; and (c) was subject to criminal trials as of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition]