1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 497,732,212 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff regarding the foregoing, from June 5, 2015 to January 21, 2016.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. As to the defendant's breach of trust, including personnel expenses

A. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B. Defendant’s defense 1) asserts that the Defendant deposited KRW 15,00,000 with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit in the criminal trial of the occupational breach of trust case of Daegu District Court Decision 2013Ra1550, the Defendant shall deduct the amount from the above amount of compensation. 2) In a case where the victim agreed that the perpetrator would not be punished against the perpetrator by receiving the money under the name of the agreement from the perpetrator in the course of investigation or criminal trial, barring any circumstances, such as where the victim clearly stated that the amount paid is paid as consolation money, the amount shall be deemed to have been paid as part of compensation (property damage) unless the perpetrator paid the money under the pretext of the agreement. The same applies to the case where the perpetrator paid the money in connection with the criminal punishment without paying the amount directly to the victim.

(2) If there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the arguments in the statements in the evidence No. 12-1 and No. 12 is added to the statement in the evidence No. 12-2 of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da43922, Jan. 15, 1999; 2000Da46894, Feb. 23, 2001). The defendant listed E, F, G, H, and I as false employees on the ground of their personal expenses, and then acquired economic benefits by voluntarily consuming KRW 27,142,50,00 for personal expenses and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.