1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who imports agricultural products and food, and engages in wholesale and retail business under the trade name of “D,” and Defendant C is a person who engages in food wholesale and retail business under the trade name of “E,” and Defendant B is the mother of Defendant C.

B. The Plaintiff supplied imported kimchi to Defendant C from January 201, but as of June 17, 2013, the outstanding amount reaches KRW 55,108,800 (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”).

C. Defendant B, on May 7, 201, opened an agricultural product and food wholesale and retail business registration under the trade name “F” and closed the business on August 24, 2012.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) although he supplied imported kimchi to Defendant C, he did not receive KRW 5,108,800 out of the price. 2) Defendant C received KRW 10,965,000 from Gmatet and Hmat that the Plaintiff supplied agricultural and fishery products, and delivered only KRW 671,000 to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and embezzled the remainder KRW 10,294,000.

3) Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of the unpaid goods and the amount of the said embezzlement, KRW 65,402,80, which is the sum of the accrued goods and the amount of the said embezzlement, and delay damages. (B) Determination 1) According to the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1-2 and the argument as to the amount of the unpaid goods, it can be acknowledged that the amount of the unpaid goods for imported kimchi supplied by the Plaintiff to Defendant C constitutes 5,108,80, and Defendant C is obligated to pay the unpaid goods and the amount of delay damages

2. Each statement of Gap evidence No. 1-1 and evidence No. 5-1 through 11 on embezzlement is acknowledged that the plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to a total of KRW 10,294,000 to Gmaart and Hmaart. Thus, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion of this part, and evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.