A. On October 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was the head of the Plaintiff’s team; (b) was a foreign patient C at D Hospital on October 2, 2012; and (c) on October 6, 2012, deposited for the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 8.6 million of the commission received from each of the above hospitals in return for soliciting and arranging foreign patients E to F Hospital; and (d) used the fee for personal use at around that time, and embezzled KRW 8.6 million in total of the above fee

(hereinafter “Embezzlement”) b. of the instant hospital fee.

The Defendant embezzled KRW 3,134,574 in the aggregate of fees paid by foreign patients at duty-free shops in return for arranging foreign patients to sell the said money at duty-free shops, while receiving the payment of KRW 3,134,574 in the account under the name of the Defendant in the name of the Defendant, on October 20, 2012; and on October 30, 2012, the Defendant embezzled KRW 3,134,574 in personal use of the said fees.

(hereinafter “Embezzlements of duty-free shop fees” / [Grounds for recognition] The overall purport of the pleadings, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of 11,734,574 won (amounting to 8.6 million won of embezzlement of the charge of the instant hospital + 3,134,574 won of embezzlement of the charge of the instant duty-free shop + 3,134,574 won) as to the embezzlement of the instant hospital fee and the compensation for damages caused by embezzlement of the duty-free shop fee of this case, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum (special cases concerning the promotion of litigation, etc.) from October 31, 2012, which is the date following the date of the final embezzlement, as the Plaintiff seeks after the date of the above embezzlement, from October 30, 2012, to October 27, 2014, on which the duplicate of the application for change of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim was delivered to the Defendant.

3. The defendant's assertion is based on incentives, credit card accounts, and wage claims against the plaintiff.