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. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following 2.3 judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not lose the president’s authority, but there is no evidence to deem the above dismissal as invalid, since the Defendant’s dismissal of the president on June 18, 2012 against the Defendant was null and void. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that since the defendant used the above 6.4 million won as the operating fund of the above office and the plaintiff is obligated to return it to the defendant as unjust enrichment, the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff's damage claim.

However, according to Article 496 of the Civil Act, set-off against a claim arising from an intentional tort is not allowed. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is a damage claim arising from an intentional tort resulting from the unauthorized withdrawal, and the Defendant’s above claim is without merit without further review.

3. If so, the decision of the first instance court is just in its conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.