1. Each claim filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendants, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates a village bus operation business.

B. Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s second representative director G and inside director, and was the Plaintiff’s joint representative director from January 19, 2009 to August 21, 2015.

Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B, and was registered as the Plaintiff’s auditor on January 19, 2009.

Defendant D is the head of Defendant B, Defendant E is the head of Defendant B, and Defendant F is the head of Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Plaintiff’s principal claim against the Defendants

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendants: (a) by taking advantage of the fact that Defendant B independently manages the Plaintiff’s funds from November 24, 2005 to July 20, 2015, Defendant B embezzled the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 512,477,126; (b) Defendant B and C embezzled the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 173,259,653 from June 8, 2007 to July 10, 2015; (c) Defendant B and E embezzled the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 5,641,160 from January 22, 2009 to July 14, 2015; and (d) jointly embezzled the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 173,259,653 from December 11, 2008 to March 23, 2016; and (c) jointly embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds from March 21, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim of this case and damages for delay with respect to each of the above amounts due to tort damages.

(b) The fact-finding results on Gap evidence No. 2, the national bank of this Court, IBK Bank, the new bank, the Korea C&T Bank, the Korean Bank, the Daegu Bank, the NH Nonghyup Bank, the HanFF Bank, the HanF Bank, and the Korea Standards Bank are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendants is going further.