1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 225,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from March 21, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s business for the safrying of safry and C’s status 1) Plaintiff from October 2002 to another fisheries cooperative (hereinafter “fisheries”).

(2) On November 9, 1996, the fishing village fraternity as the plaintiff on November 9, 2001, after designating the intermediary wholesalers as the designated intermediary wholesaler for the purchase of the plaintiff's building and then purchasing the destroyed goods, and supplying them to the national large-scale retail outlet or meal service company. (2) C entered the Da fishing village fraternity as the plaintiff's telegraph, and became the plaintiff on November 9, 2001, the fishing village fraternity was in charge of the destroyed goods distribution and the destroyed goods distribution.

B. C’s breach of trust (1) around January 2009, around the day of the Plaintiff’s 2009, C had the intent to refrain from committing the crime of breach of trust with the following contents. The fact is that the Plaintiff did not purchase the destroyed goods from the designated intermediary (E, F, and G), but, upon the Plaintiff’s internal approval on the sale and purchase contract and the payment of the purchase amount, C would have the Plaintiff purchased the destroyed goods from the designated intermediary, and the Plaintiff would have the designated intermediary, paid the purchase price for the virtual trade to the designated intermediary. C requested that the designated intermediary “if the sales price received was transferred to the account designated by C for the Plaintiff’s business, it would have caused the virtual trade to again be transferred to the designated intermediary.” If the designated intermediary transfers the sales price to the account designated by C, it would have arbitrarily used the said money.

In preparation for the plaintiff's own inventory inspection and the audit by NFFC, C requests that I issue a false inventory certificate to “H” operator who entrusts the plaintiff with the custody of the destroyed work, which is different from the actual storage of the destroyed work in accordance with the amount of the plaintiff’s business needs, and the actual storage of the destroyed work,” and issued a false inventory certificate from I.

C submits the said inventory certificate to the Plaintiff, and as such, the destroyed goods purchased through the virtual sale in H warehouse belong to the Plaintiff as they are actually stored.