1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant embezzled the Plaintiff’s money totaling KRW 34,396,600 in total up to 68 times from November 3, 2011 to September 24, 2012, for the following reasons: (a) either remitting money from the Plaintiff’s Agricultural Cooperative Account (C), the New Bank Account (D; hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant Plaintiff’s account”); or (b) directly receiving money from the Plaintiff’s business bank account in the name of the Defendant to the Defendant’s account; or (c) by directly receiving money from the Plaintiff’s business bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 34,396,600 won and damages for delay.

2. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the fact that money was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Defendant to the Defendant’s account, or that money was transferred from the Customer to the Defendant’s name account does not conflict between the parties, or that the said money was transferred to the Defendant’s account may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and the overall purport of pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, and 9 (including

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name is the account managed by H, ii) the Plaintiff and the Defendant were involved in the operation of H, iii) the aforementioned remittance process to ensure that both I, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant 3 were aware of, and if money was deposited in the Plaintiff’s name, the Plaintiff was notified in writing to the Plaintiff, and thus, there was no fact that the Defendant arbitrarily deposited the said money without the Plaintiff’s knowledge. In light of the above facts acknowledged earlier, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant embezzled the said money, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.