1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Defendant is an incorporated farming association established on November 19, 1998 with the aim of promoting the increase of the members’ income through the improvement of the environment of agriculture, fisheries, livestock farming industry, joint shipment of agricultural products, etc. (2) The Plaintiff is a person dismissed on June 17, 2015 while serving as an executive officer of the Defendant (the head of the headquarters) on August 9, 2013.

B. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was indicted for summary penalty of KRW 2,00,000 for the following criminal facts. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff received KRW 800,000 from the Defendant’s office, the representative D of C mediating the transaction of feed between the Defendant and Hyundai Feed Co., Ltd. in the name of the Defendant’s swine pregnancy examination expenses, and embezzled it by arbitrarily consuming 8,00,000 won for children’s tuition expenses, etc. from that time until April 6, 2015, and then wrongfully consumed and embezzled 10 times from that time after receiving KRW 8,00,000 for total of KRW 10 until April 6, 2015, the Plaintiff received the notice of dismissal from the Plaintiff on June 17, 2015. The Plaintiff received it at that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). [Grounds for recognition] The dismissal of this case is without dispute; Gap evidence 5; Eul evidence 1 and 3; Gap evidence 1 and 3; substantial facts to this court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The money provided by the representative D does not belong to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s act is not an occupational embezzlement, since the Plaintiff’s act was approved by the Defendant’s representative director with respect to the Plaintiff’s receipt of the costs of diagnosis of swine from D and the use of the money for the marketing. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act does not constitute an occupational embezzlement. Therefore, even if the cause for the disciplinary action is not acknowledged to the Plaintiff, even if the cause for the disciplinary action is not recognized, the instant dismissal is null and void. (ii) The Defendant’s dismissal under the Defendant’s articles of incorporation must undergo a resolution of the board of directors in the event of dismissal of an employee.