1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a change in the trial or a claim added thereto, shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. From 2009 to June 201, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 775,607,670 to the Defendant who was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount and damages for delay with the loan to the plaintiff.

B. From 2008 to 2011, the Plaintiff loaned the said money to the Defendant’s or the Defendant’s wife, etc. by way of remitting the total amount of KRW 469,239,958.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount and damages for delay with the loan to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and evidence Nos. 8 through 11 (including evidence attached with serial numbers), the Plaintiff’s transaction partner director stated as “the Plaintiff paid the Defendant with the provisional payment or loan” and ② the Plaintiff’s account director (2,641,540 won (208, 2009) included as the Plaintiff’s interest rate for the provisional payment (26,105,082 won (26,536,458 won) as the Plaintiff’s interest rate for the provisional payment (26,536,458 won) as the Defendant’s interest rate for the provisional payment (26,105,082 won) and the Defendant remitted the said money to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2010; ③ otherwise, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendant from 2008 to 2011.

B. However, there is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 8 and the testimony of the first instance court witness F. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) while it stated that "the defendant embezzleds the plaintiff company's money by the above means" but the defendant was subject to a disposition on Nov. 21, 2014, and the defendant filed by the plaintiff on May 22, 2015.