A. The Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the E-Road Packing work at the Sypt D at the Sypt D at the Sypt D, and subcontracted the construction of the structure (hereinafter “instant construction”) to F on December 21, 2008.

B. Defendant B was a person who was an employee of the Plaintiff, and was the head of the field office for the instant construction, and Defendant C was the actual operator of the said F.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Defendant B, as the head of the site of the instant construction, did not perform the instant construction work, and there was an occupational duty to accurately calculate the construction progress of the instant construction work performed by Defendant C, and to report it to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant C, etc., caused the Plaintiff to incur damage to the Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff to incur KRW 316,859,202 (i.e., the amount paid to the Plaintiff with a false and unfair intent (i., the amount of payment 2,266,749,51 - KRW 1,949,890,349) to incur damage, or at least caused damage to I, etc. to additionally pay KRW 143,168,610, due to the falseness of the part of the instant construction work which was attached to the instant construction work.

Even if the Defendants’ act does not constitute an act of breach of trust, the Defendants, in collusion with the Plaintiff’s Vice-K, embezzled the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff’s false and reasonable construction cost, or by taking custody of false and reasonable proceeds. However, in the event that the part of the construction is unable to be executed, the Defendants embezzled it despite their duty to return to the Plaintiff

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 316,859,202 won to the Plaintiff as damages.

B. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18 (including any number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the testimony of the witness H, I, and the witness L of the court of first instance as a whole.