1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part against co-defendants of the court of first instance, which became separated and finalized), except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant as to the argument that the defendant emphasizes or adds in the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it

The summary of the defendant's argument that the defendant made an additional decision was the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party suit agreement

However, the non-party company agreed to limit the defendant's liability to KRW 150 million and exempt the defendant from the defendant's liability by paying it. This is valid without the consent of all shareholders under Article 400 of the Commercial Code.

The non-party company filed an application for compensation order in relation to the embezzlement of the above funds and exercised the claim for damages against the defendant by receiving the agreed amount of KRW 150 million according to the above non-party action agreement with the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be entitled to exercise the above claim for damages on behalf of the non-party company.

Of the KRW 1.5 billion remitted by the Defendant on behalf of Nonparty G and F, the remaining KRW 600 million, excluding the KRW 900,000,000, which was convicted of embezzlement, was actually paid as the acquisition price of F shares ( KRW 50,000) and the investment amount. Thus, the Defendant is not liable for the above KRW 60,00

However, even if it is not so, the defendant paid 150 million won to the non-party company with the agreed amount, and there is no personal benefit from the funds of the non-party company, so the defendant's liability should be limited.

In full view of the above facts as to Gap's 600 million won, Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant was prosecuted for embezzlement of KRW 900 million out of the funds of the non-party company 1.5 billion, with respect to the case of Seoul Central District Court 201Gohap359.