1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 77,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 26, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B Agricultural Cooperatives

A. The parties’ assertion that “Defendant C, an employee of Defendant B agricultural cooperative, embezzled the sales proceeds of the Plaintiff’s Trackor, Defendant B, as an employer, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff’s damages pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act.”

In this regard, the defendant asserts that "the right to claim damages due to unlawful acts is extinguished unless the victim exercises his right for damages for three years from the date when the victim became aware of the damage and the perpetrator, and that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case three years after the plaintiff became aware of the tort committed by the defendant C, and that the plaintiff's right to claim damages against

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 5, 6, and 7 (including paper numbers), the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff sold it to the warden on December 2006.

The plaintiff stated that "the defendant C was aware of the illegal act of the defendant C around December 2007, and the defendant C was removed from the defendant agricultural cooperative around December 2008 in the accusation (Evidence No. 6) submitted by the plaintiff to the Kim Jong-gu Police Station. It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was aware of the illegal act of the defendant C, and it is clear that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on September 27, 2016.

Therefore, the plaintiff's right to claim damages against the defendant B agricultural cooperatives has expired by prescription.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B was groundless.

3. The claim of this case is partly accepted within the extent of the above recognition.