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

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling signal lamps and street lamps installed, and Defendant C was in charge of managing the Plaintiff’s funds from January 201.

B. Defendant B transferred KRW 196,430,00 in total to the Plaintiff’s deposit account from March 201 to October 201, 201; Defendant C transferred KRW 111,236,320 in total to the Plaintiff’s deposit account from April 201 to January 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. In the Plaintiff’s primary assertion, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the Plaintiff’s money by making a deposit of KRW 111,236,320 from the Plaintiff’s deposit account, following the Plaintiff’s tending to have borrowed the said money from Defendant B, even though the Defendants did not lend KRW 196,430,00 to the Plaintiff, by taking advantage of the fact that Defendant C was responsible for managing the Plaintiff’s funds.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay damages to the Plaintiff, 111,236,320 won, and damages for delay.

Preliminaryly, if the Defendants’ tort is not constituted, Defendant B received KRW 111,236,320 from the Plaintiff’s deposit account even though it did not lend money to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment, 111,236,320, and delay damages.

B. The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 111,236,320 in total from the Plaintiff’s deposit account to the Defendant B during the period from April 2011 to January 2013 is as seen earlier.

However, the following facts are acknowledged by the respective descriptions and the entire purport of the evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including the number of branch numbers) as follows: ① The Plaintiff’s representative D has embezzled by transferring or withdrawing KRW 719,052,703 from the Plaintiff’s deposit account.