1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant appeal filed by the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s representative without the appointment of the Plaintiff’s special representative is unlawful, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the legitimacy of the instant appeal, C withdraws from the Plaintiff and thereafter, is no longer the Plaintiff’s representative.

Therefore, in light of the purport of the entire argument in the statement of health class No. 2, C is continuously listed in the Plaintiff’s corporate register as the Plaintiff’s representative after February 27, 2007, and the materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone are sufficient to deem C as amending the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation through legitimate procedures, withdrawing from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was appointed as the Plaintiff’s representative. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, without merit.

2. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a law firm that performs the duties of attorney-at-law and notary public, and the defendant is a member attorney of the plaintiff.

B. On September 16, 2009, the Defendant: (a) as of September 16, 2009, kept KRW 10 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won of the total sales amount of the Notarial Practice as of September 16, 200; (b) opened and kept a separate independent account; (c) signed a cash custody certificate stating “A representative attorney C and a member attorney B” (hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”) and delivered

C. Around September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the aforementioned custody amount. The Defendant’s failure to comply with the Plaintiff’s request by notifying the Plaintiff of the facts, such as the source of the custody amount and the details of withdrawal. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with an investigative agency on the charge of embezzlement, on the ground that there was no clear evidence regarding the cash flow of KRW 7,00,000 as stated in the instant cash custody certificate, and the investigative agency was suspected of embezzlement on August 25, 2015.