1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling drugs, etc., and the Defendant, from September 2009 to January 201, 2013, was in charge of selling drugs, etc. to the customer who the Defendant managed as the Plaintiff’s business employee and collecting the price thereof from such customer.

B. Around September 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid 32.5% of the drug price collected by the Defendant to the Defendant as retirement allowance, and accumulated 10% of the said payment as retirement allowance. However, the Plaintiff agreed to receive 67.5% of the difference between the claim amount to the customer of the pharmacy recorded in the Plaintiff’s account book and the claim amount entered in the customer’s account book of the pharmacy (hereinafter “the difference between the claim amount and the claim amount to be received”). Around April 2010, the Plaintiff changed the rate of the Defendant’s salary out of the drug price collected by the Defendant to 25%, and the difference between the claim amount to be received by the Defendant to 75%.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement of this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the agreement of this case' (which is the ground for recognition), Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-9, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In addition to the purport of the argument as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence Nos. 4-5, 8, 21, and 6-1 of Gap evidence No. 6, the plaintiff filed a complaint on the ground that "the defendant did not pay the drug price received from the customer or arbitrarily disposed of the drug price received from the customer as return from the customer and embezzled the difference corresponding to the difference in the attempted amount of this case." The plaintiff asserted that the amount of embezzlement of the defendant in the complaint is KRW 57,269,358. The plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's business management office stated that the defendant's embezzlement amount was KRW 46,294,31 won as the defendant's embezzlement amount was investigated by the prosecutor in the capacity of the defendant's agent, and the defendant embezzled KRW 41,071,279 in the above manner, and the defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 600,000 on November 15, 2013.