1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff (former Mutual Aid Co., Ltd.) is a company established for the purpose of software service development business on June 14, 2010, and is a company that reported the closure of business on May 26, 2014. The former husband D is a person who actually operated the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s liquidator E is the Plaintiff’s creditor, who was designated as the Plaintiff’s liquidator on July 9, 2015.

D while managing the Plaintiff, the F Bank Account in the name of the Plaintiff (G; hereinafter the account number is omitted) was used. The details of cash withdrawal from the F Bank Account in the name of the Plaintiff are as shown in the “Plaintiff Company Account” column in the attached Table.

However, the number No. 44 is 2.5 million won, 1.0 million won, and 1.26 won, respectively, and the number No. 126 shall be changed and recognized.

E accused the Defendant and D, etc. on the charge of occupational breach of trust on October 21, 2016, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office rejected the Defendant on June 30, 201 through November 30, 201, on the charge of occupational breach of trust, on the ground that “In fact, the Plaintiff was provided services from the Defendant and the J despite the fact that it was not provided by the Defendant and the J, and thus, paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 92,050,000 and KRW 137,740,000 to the J, and breached its duties in violation of its duties.” The Seoul Southern Southern District Prosecutors' Office dismissed the disposition against the Defendant on October 21, 2016 on the ground that there was no need for investigation, and issued a disposition without suspicion (influence of evidence) as to D.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 6, 14, and 16 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the plaintiff's assertion 261,20,000 won as to the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the whole pleadings shall be withdrawn from the F bank account under the name of the plaintiff to the bank account under the name of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant shall gain a profit equivalent to the same amount, and the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 261,200,000 won, which was embezzled and deposited by D without permission, to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff is a prosecutor before the above 261,200,000 won.