1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The evidence No. 7 is added to the evidence of the first instance judgment No. 3, citing the judgment of the court of first instance, and the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial is identical to the reasoning part of the judgment of the first instance, except for addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. Although the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had a duty to pay wages and retirement allowances to the Plaintiff and the designated parties with the sales price of the instant bricks, he/she lent some of them to the Plaintiff and the designated parties, and arbitrarily used them to M.

In addition, although the defendant has a duty to fairly distribute wages and retirement allowances, the defendant paid wages and retirement allowances to some workers related to the defendant such as L et al. first, and eventually, the wages and retirement allowances to be paid to the plaintiff and the selected persons do not remain.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiff and the selected parties for the damages equivalent to the accrued wages and retirement allowances due to the above illegal acts.

B. 1) In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was arbitrarily lent part of the instant brick sales price to M in light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1 and 7 of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the assertion of lending to M. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on this premise is without merit. A) The evidence supporting the fact of lending, such as the loan certificate or financial transaction, prepared between the Defendant and M, was not submitted.

B) The Defendant was accused of the Plaintiff’s embezzlement of part of the sales price of the instant bricks from the Plaintiff (Article 36457 of the Korean District Prosecutors’ Office, 2012) and was subject to a non-prosecution disposition. 2) In regard to the erroneous assertion on the distribution of wages and retirement allowances, the fact-finding on the witness L’s testimony and the fact-finding on the Jinju branch of the original district court.