1. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. As to the claim for embezzlement damages

A. Whether the Defendants embezzled the difference in the construction cost of KRW 80,000,000; 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is about whether the Plaintiff embezzled the difference in the construction cost of KRW 80,000.

B) As between the building and the building of the 1st basement and the 5th floor above the ground in Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

(B) The construction contract was concluded with respect to the construction project, but major construction waived the said construction project, and thereafter, Defendant B waived the F that the Plaintiff operates (hereinafter “F”).

)을 소개하여, F이 2004년 2월경 이 사건 건물을 완공하였다. 피고들은 위 잔여공사를 주도하면서 원고를 공사에 개입하지 못하게 하였고, 또한 원고에게 이 사건 건물을 담보로 대출받아 위 잔여공사 대금을 정산하기로 하였다고 말하여, 원고는 이 사건 건물을 담보로 500,000,000원을 대출받아 이를 F에 송금하였다. 그러나 실제 이 사건 건물의 공사대금은 420,000,000원이었고 피고들은 F로부터 그 차액 80,000,000원을 돌려받았음에도 원고에게 이를 반환하지 아니하는 불법행위를 하였다. 따라서 피고들은 연대하여 그에 따른 손해배상으로 원고에게 80,000,000원과 그 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 2) 판단 ㈎ 갑 제1 내지 5호증(가지번호 있는 것은 각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면 아래와 같은 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

① From March 24, 2003 to October 30, 2003, the Plaintiff concluded the instant building construction contract by setting the construction cost of KRW 424,80,000, and the period from March 24, 2003 to October 30, 2003.

However, in April 2003, when the Gyeong Sejong Construction renounced the construction of the instant building, the Plaintiff was introduced from Defendant B with the F operated by Defendant B, and the F was entrusted with the remaining construction of the instant building on October 21, 2003.

② Around February 2004, F completed the instant building, and the Plaintiff as to the instant building.