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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates the supermarket with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a person who supplies goods, such as cremation, to the above C, etc. on the trade name of D, and E is an employee of the above D, who has been in charge of the above D’s business of supplying goods and collecting gold.

B. From July 1, 2014, E entered the amount of KRW 1,403,70 in the column of transaction as if he/she supplied the goods of KRW 1,403,70,00 in fact to the above C, and received KRW 1,403,700 from the Plaintiff’s side as the price for the goods after presenting it to the Plaintiff, and received KRW 38,388,500 from the Plaintiff’s side until December 22, 2015, and acquired the goods by receiving KRW 38,38,500 on 40 occasions until December 22, 2015, E was indicted as 209 of this Court, and was sentenced to a stay of execution for six months from this Court on April 27, 2017. The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 46, Eul evidence No. 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion E, based on the fact that the Plaintiff’s husband G, who is in charge of settlement in C, did not comparison with the transaction statement and confirmed only the transaction paper prepared by E, and settled the price of goods. As to the goods partially returned from the transaction statement for his own use from March 2013 to the Defendant, the transaction statement for the supplier, which was to be delivered to the Defendant, forged the Plaintiff’s employee’s signature, and forged the transaction statement for the supplier to be delivered to the Defendant, without deducting the returned goods which were crossed out on the transaction paper, entered it in the transaction book, signed by the Plaintiff’s employee without deducting the returned goods. The Plaintiff’s signature was confirmed in the transaction book. When issuing the transaction statement on the next transaction date, the Plaintiff issued the transaction statement and delivered it to the Plaintiff. The above G did not understand that the amount of goods supplied was unrefilled as above.

In addition, E.