1. Revocation of the first instance judgment and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (2013Gahap499) against the Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) seeking the Plaintiff’s damages due to the unilateral reversal of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company during the supply of remote areas between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. On March 28, 2013, the first instance court rendered a judgment without holding any pleadings stating that the non-party company would pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,146,313,495 and delay damages therefor, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment claim”) against the Plaintiff’s damage claim under the foregoing judgment.

D was the representative director of the non-party company, and the following criminal facts were prosecuted for committing the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (U.S.C. 2018 Gonam branch court). On May 23, 2019, the first instance court sentenced D imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months, and two years of suspended execution, which became final and conclusive around that time.

(C) Around November 2, 2010, 200, 2000,000 won (hereinafter “instant crime”). D, upon the request of E, took out a loan from a half-month branch of an enterprise bank to an enterprise bank account in the name of the non-party company for the purpose of operating the company, and voluntarily used the funds of the non-party company from November 3, 2010 to November 23, 2010 to the account under the name of E, 209,06,000 won (hereinafter “the instant crime”).

As a result, D and E embezzled KRW 2 billion, 9,066,80,00,000, which is the property of the non-party company that was under custody in the course of business.

The non-party company closed its business on December 28, 2012.

In addition, D is insolvent as a basic livelihood recipient as of the closing date of the argument in the trial.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3 to 5.