1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a company that is established on April 29, 1996 and operates the manufacturing, sales, etc. of power generators, and the Defendants have worked as the Plaintiff’s officer from April 29, 201 to February 10, 2012.

Plaintiff

On October 25, 201, from the account under the name of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), KRW 50 million was transferred to the account under the name of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), KRW 250,000,000,000,000 after the previous 27.25,000,000,000 was transferred from the account under the name of D on January 13, 2012 to the account under the name of the Plaintiff.

As above, on January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 750 million from D, and KRW 500 million was transferred from the E Association account in the name of the Plaintiff to the F Company account in the name of B, and KRW 250 million was transferred from the G Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff to H (hereinafter “H”) account in the name of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds on the grounds stated in the foregoing B and C, and filed a complaint with the Defendants on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with the Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office in 2017, but the prosecutor of the above prosecutor’s office rendered a disposition against Defendant B on May 26, 2017 on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to deem the Defendants as not the Plaintiff’s creditor.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 (including each number in case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the court's order to submit financial transaction information to G bank of this case as a result of this court's submission of financial transaction information to G bank, the defendants alleged the whole purport of the argument as to the plaintiff's tort liability by abusing their power of representation, notwithstanding the absence of business necessity by taking advantage of the status of managing the plaintiff's funds, are liable to compensate the plaintiff jointly.

The defendants are liable for damages of directors under the Commercial Code.