1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be the part resulting from the participation.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant C and Defendant D kept and managed the Plaintiff’s seal, passbook, and authorized certificate, the Plaintiff’s actual manager’s personal seal impression, passbook, etc. as well as the Plaintiff’s employee who was in charge of the Plaintiff’s overall accounting affairs. On June 30, 2009, the Small and Medium Business Corporation deposited KRW 200,000,000, out of the above loans, to be deposited into the account of Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”), and embezzled KRW 150,000,000, out of the loans, to be deposited into the account of Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and issued a false tax invoice.

Therefore, Defendant C and Defendant D are jointly and severally liable to refund the above KRW 150,000,000 and the delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff, who intentionally violated the occupational duties as above, with Defendant C and Defendant D, who illegally benefited from the above KRW 150,000.

B. The reasoning of the judgment is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant C and Defendant D embezzled 150,000,000 won, which was submitted by the Plaintiff, and caused Defendant B to gain unjust profit. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 5 above, E lent KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 29, 2009 upon the Plaintiff’s request, and then lent KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff on March 31 of the same year, upon receiving payment from the Plaintiff for KRW 150,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff and deposited it into the Defendant B’s account. Accordingly, if the factual relations are as above, Defendant C and the above Defendant D embezzled the above KRW 150,000,000 on July 29, 209.

It cannot be deemed that Defendant B obtained the above KRW 150,000,000 from the Plaintiff without any legal ground in relation to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion, ..