The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Plaintiff

The receiver A of the debtor company A.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases or the addition of the additional determination under Paragraph 2. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The last two judgment of the first instance court is "1. A’s claim filed by the administrator B of the Plaintiff’s Debtor Rehabilitation Debtor A” as “1. A’s claim.”

Section 7 of the first instance court Decision 3: “A was commenced on December 10, 2015 by the Jeonju District Court 2015. B filed the instant lawsuit after appointing a custodian of A on May 29, 2017.

Since April 1, 2020, A had completed the rehabilitation procedure, and the plaintiff A taken over the lawsuit.

“Aro-friendly”.

The fourth judgment of the first instance court added "the result of an order to submit financial transaction information to N banks of the first instance court" to "(based on recognition)."

During the fourth 5th eth of the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff’s custodian B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s custodian”) of the Plaintiff’s Debtor Rehabilitation Debtor”) is the Plaintiff’s “A”.

The following parts shall be added to the 5th judgment of the first instance:

【4) Barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A damages equivalent to the above embezzlement amounting to KRW 414,686,50, and the delayed damages.

[Judgment of the court of first instance 5] 5 pages

The part concerning the Defendant’s assertion 2) is reversed as follows.

When considering the following circumstances, “However, the evidence Nos. 9, 10, 17, 20, and 20 obtained by adding the whole purport of the pleadings, the Defendant may recognize that the Defendant was involved in the creation of operating funds, issuance of a loan bill, etc., and solely on the evidence Nos. 1-3, 6-9, K is insufficient to view that the actual operator of A, the Defendant is merely the representative director in the form of A, or the Defendant is irrelevant to the embezzlement of the loan discount bill issued by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

(1) The defendant shall have shares A.