A. On February 6, 2004, the Appointor D and the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) entered into an investment agreement with E on or around February 6, 2004, and established F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on or around February 23, 2004, and D was appointed as the representative director of F.

B. Defendant B was the head of production in the F’s factory, and Defendant C performed the F’s accounting and the receipt and disbursement of goods.

C. The Appointor D wired the total of KRW 27,500,000 on March 22, 2004 to the Defendant C account, KRW 3,500,000 on March 23 of the same month, and KRW 27,500,000 on March 24 of the same month.

Upon drawing up a receipt that Defendant B received KRW 20,000,000 from the Appointor around March 2004 (hereinafter “instant receipt”), Defendant B paid KRW 13,000,000 as to the said money;

2.Payments 7,800,000 for semi-processed machines of factories;

1. 2. Of the amounts referred to in paragraph 2., some of them are the amount of advance payment. They will be responsible and disbursed by themselves and process lease contracts and receipts.

“.....”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 (the identity of the human being is recognized, and the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been established. Defendant B has no evidence to assert that the above writing is not his own, but there is no evidence to prove it), Gap evidence 11, 12, 14, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole oral argument.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff et al. alleged by the plaintiff et al. who invested KRW 50,000,000 in F, but Eul acquired the investment money and did not return to China around February 20, 2004.

Around March 2004, Defendant B, an employee of E, demanded investment that the products be manufactured and sold even if there is no E, and that the Plaintiff, etc., transferred the said money to Defendant C’s head of Tong, thereby allowing the said money to be used for the factory rental deposit and the factory ceiling machine cost, but the Defendants embezzled the said money by using it for other purposes.

Therefore, it is true.