1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, or the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1.

A. While the Plaintiff was operating an individual company from around September 1997 to November 201, 201, the Plaintiff received a receipt of installation work of the luminous discharge pipe from around September 2009 to received a payment of the luminous discharge pipe from around November 201, and ordered a public service director E and D to the Defendant, a public service director, entrusted the operation of the said construction site.

B. Around March 24, 2010, the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement (1) E and the Defendant concluded a subcontract on part of the above construction with the Plaintiff’s delegation with respect to the above construction work (hereinafter “the above construction work”) and concluded a contract on the said construction work, and the actual construction cost was excessively appropriated for the construction cost of KRW 396,274,48, and then entered into a contract on construction cost of KRW 766,400,000 and received an excessive construction cost returned from the adjacent seal.

(2) As above, E and the Defendant reported the above excessive construction cost to the Plaintiff, paid the above excessive construction cost in accordance with the Plaintiff’s instruction, and then embezzled it by personal consumption during the period when the Plaintiff was kept on duty after returning construction cost of KRW 78,763,812 from that seal to that of an Aardi vehicle, around April 6, 2010, which was personally used and embezzled it. From that time, from that time to April 8, 2010, the amount of construction cost was refunded to the said excessive construction cost of KRW 207,263,812, and then embezzled it by personal consumption during the period of being kept on duty for the Plaintiff.

C. On the other hand, the Defendant, on March 26, 201, paid KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff on March 26, 201 in order to return the construction price embezzled as above, and among which, up to April 30, 201, KRW 50 million was to be paid until April 30, 201, and the remainder of KRW 50 million was to be paid by May 30, 201 (Evidence 1; hereinafter “instant letter”) and delivered to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant regarding the above defendant's occupational embezzlement.