1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. The appeal costs and the claims in the trial.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Of KRW 249,740,126, which was remitted from the Plaintiff’s assertion to the Defendant’s account in the Plaintiff’s name, KRW 71 million for the Defendant’s salary, KRW 40,000 for business allowances, and KRW 34,766,90 for the Defendant’s use for the Plaintiff, the remaining KRW 103,973,223 shall be returned to the Plaintiff as the amount received by the Defendant without any legal cause.

B. The Plaintiff’s actual history is F, and the Defendant, as a nominal representative director, has no dispute between the parties to the fact that he/she was in charge of the management of customers and settlement of payments under F’s direction and supervision, and the Plaintiff asserts that all the money transferred from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant’s account should be deemed as embezzlement by the Defendant without obtaining the approval of F, the Plaintiff’s actual intent is examined as to whether the Defendant voluntarily withdrawn money from the Plaintiff’s name, and the money transferred from the Defendant’s name to the Defendant’s account can be deemed as embezzlement.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant embezzled the said money by arbitrarily remitting the Plaintiff’s money to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant without F’s approval, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

1) Since F wholly controlled the withdrawal by holding a passbook and cash card in the remaining accounts except for a corporate bank account among four accounts under the Plaintiff’s name, all of the money transferred from the remaining accounts to the Defendant’s name can be deemed to have been withdrawn under the F’s approval (in light of the fact that the Defendant was under the F’s direction and supervision, for the Plaintiff out of the money remitted under the F’s approval.