1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are children between Nonparty E and the network F, and Defendant B and Defendant C are married parents.

B. On March 3, 2003, E and net F completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration on February 28, 2003 with respect to the G Building 108 and 111 (hereinafter “each of the instant shopping districts”) from Changwon-si, Changwon-si’s window for the purpose of purchase and sale reservation. On March 26, 2003, the said provisional registration was cancelled on the ground of cancellation, and on the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant shopping districts on March 25, 2003.

C. Since October 23, 2003, each of the instant commercial buildings was sold to Nonparty H on October 23, 2003, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 18, 2003 on the ground of the said trading.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff delegated the sale and lease of each of the instant commercial buildings owned by the Plaintiff to Defendant B and C, and Defendant D, its employees, sold each of the instant commercial buildings at KRW 330,000,000 to Nonparty H around October 23, 200 and embezzled the sales proceeds of the instant commercial buildings at KRW 330,000,000 and did not return the sales proceeds to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay each of the Plaintiff the above KRW 330,000,000 and delay damages therefrom.

3. The testimony of the witness H is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B and C delegated the sale or lease of each of the instant commercial buildings by the Plaintiff and sold it to H along with the Defendant D and embezzled the price, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 12, and the purport of Gap’s evidence No. 6 and the entire pleadings, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants embezzled the sales price of each of the instant commercial buildings.

E shall be September 16, 2010.