1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B was the person responsible for the management of the E precious metal store in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “E”), among precious metal stores owned by the Plaintiff.

B. Around June 8, 2014, Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial prepared and issued a factual confirmation (Evidence A 1) stating that “The Plaintiff was damaged by trading KRW 50 million with Defendant B, who was unaware of the Plaintiff. The amount of damage is currently in default of payment.”

C. On June 9, 2014, Defendant C prepared and issued a written confirmation (Evidence A 6) stating that “I would make a full repayment by July 25, 2014, with E operator B without notifying the Plaintiff of KRW 28 million in cash with Defendant B.”

On June 25, 2014, Defendant B prepared and issued a written confirmation (Evidence A 2) stating that “The principal confirms that his products and cash 38 million won against Defendant C remain in the purchase price up to now,” and that “the principal, as a custodian, has been aware of the Plaintiff by embezzlement of the amount equivalent to KRW 78 million in cash and cash for about four years since 201, and that “the principal, as a manager, shall compensate for the amount of embezzlement by December 2014.” (Evidence A5) stating that “The principal shall compensate for the amount of embezzlement by December 2014.”

E. Defendant C repaid the Plaintiff KRW 15 million on July 25, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 3-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B’s assertion on June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) detained Defendant B in the E store on June 25, 2014; and (b) forced Defendant B to affix a written confirmation (Evidence A2) and a written confirmation (Evidence A5).

In addition, 50 million won out of the embezzlement funds alleged by the Plaintiff is the sales proceeds, such as gals sold by Defendant B to Defendant D.

Therefore, Defendant D bears the obligation to pay the purchase price, and Defendant D bears the obligation.