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

A. From May 1, 1997, the Defendant was an employee in charge of sales in “C” operated by the Plaintiff from around May 1, 1997. Since June 2012, the Plaintiff began to delay in payment of wages, and the Defendant retired from office around October 20, 2014.

B. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition against the Plaintiff on the grounds of the delayed payment of wages with the Seoul Western District Office, and the head of the Seoul Western District Office found the Plaintiff’s delayed payment of wages to be the total amount of KRW 42,093,540, and retirement allowances to be KRW 12,113,145, and accused the Defendant at the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office as the suspicion of violating the Labor Standards Act.

C. At that time, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of occupational embezzlement, and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.

On April 8, 2015, the public prosecutor of the Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor's Office (hereinafter "Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor's Office") rendered a non-prosecution disposition against the defendant, and the plaintiff filed an appeal against this, but the public prosecutor of the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office decided to dismiss the appeal on June 9, 2015.

On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 35,000,000 won to the Defendant as agreed money in the criminal conciliation procedure of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office on the violation of the Labor Standards Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant incurred damages to the Plaintiff in total amounting to KRW 46,077,636 due to six of the following matters during the period of work in C (where there is a somewhat difference between the claim amount and the claim cause of the written complaint and the specific amount of damages), and that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff.

(1) The Plaintiff paid a credit card to the Defendant only for the purpose of obtaining approval from the Plaintiff on his/her duties. The Defendant paid the said credit card between January 2014 and September 2014.