1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The Plaintiff, based on the facts, operated the business entity, “E”, and limited liability company F, and operated a business selling construction materials. The Defendant, around 2017, was an employee in charge of accounting affairs at the Plaintiff’s above business entity, does not conflict between the parties.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the sales proceeds of construction materials that the Plaintiff is obliged to receive from the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”), and embezzled them by taking them at will around November 2017. As such, the Defendant ought to return the said KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff as compensation for tort or unjust enrichment.

3. In light of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from I as a payment of construction materials sales proceeds from I, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, according to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 1, the Plaintiff’s wife, and the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a criminal charge of embezzlement on the grounds of the same argument. However, it is recognized that the Defendant was subject to a disposition of non-guilty charges from the former District Prosecutors’ Office, and the instant claim is based on the Plaintiff’s vague trend. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. As such, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's claim extended by this court and this court shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.