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

A. From January 4, 2005 to November 8, 2008, E, the husband of the Plaintiff, operated an Internet exclusive shipping agency under the name of “G” in the name of “G” after having registered its business under the Plaintiff’s name.

B. Defendant B is the above.

During the period of the subsection, he/she was in charge of accounting while working as an employee of the G.

Defendant C was well-grounded in Defendant B, and Defendant D served as a member of Defendant B’s branch, together with Defendant B.

C. The above A.

During the period of this subsection, the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Plaintiff (Account Number: H), the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of E (Account Number: I), and the Bank Account in the name of E (Account Number: J) was used as G’s business purpose account (the sum of each of the above accounts is referred to as “each of the instant business purposes”).

For the period of the above A.C.

The amount of KRW 456,724,963 to Defendant B’s account, KRW 275,450,00 to Defendant C’s account, and KRW 88,632,530 to Defendant D’s account, respectively.

E. The plaintiff is the defendant B's above.

During the period set forth in paragraph (1), G 1,230,561,679 won was embezzled, and Defendant B filed a complaint, but Defendant B was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on February 25, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, 10, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff argued by the parties that the defendant Eul embezzled KRW 1,152,03,170 by arbitrarily withdrawing money from the plaintiff's and E's account where the profits of the defendant Eul were kept, or transferring money to the defendant's account, and the defendant C and the defendant D participated in the above embezzlement of the defendant Eul. The defendants asserted that they are liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above embezzlement amount.

As to this, the Defendants ordered E to keep G earnings in an account other than each business purpose of this case, and Defendant B had the same direction.