1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 34,784,300 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from April 1, 2017 to June 28, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff and took charge of the Plaintiff’s business and accounting affairs from January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff’s representative director C filed a criminal charge against the Defendant’s embezzlement of KRW 82,670,849 on the basis of embezzlement of the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook and corporate card while in office. As to the accusation that “the Defendant embezzled KRW 47,886,549 out of the above amount for business purposes,” the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of KRW 34,784,30 on November 23, 2017, and “the Defendant embezzled KRW 34,784,300 in business for business purposes” from January 18, 2015 to February 3, 2017. The Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of KRW 5,00,000 on April 6, 2018.

The defendant appealed against this and continues to be in the appellate trial.

C. Meanwhile, on May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff’s representative director was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,600,000 for the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 5,80,000 for retirement pay of KRW 5,804,178 for unpaid amount of KRW 11,604,178, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,00,000 for the Incheon District Court’s Vice-Support 201,594, and the said conviction became final and conclusive as is.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 10, Gap's evidence 12, and Gap's evidence 15, the purport of the whole legal theory

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Since the Defendant alleged that he had embezzled KRW 75,170,849 by using the Plaintiff’s corporate card in excess of the limit or by arbitrarily withdrawing cash from the Plaintiff’s passbook, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said amount and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment on the above argument, and according to the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant has embezzled KRW 34,784,300 as an occupational embezzlement.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has embezzled his duties in excess of the above amount, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Sub-decisions.