1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B’s KRW 23,430,409, and its related amount, from September 6, 2013, and Defendant Qatas Life Insurance.

1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. As Defendant B, an insurance solicitor of Defendant Mtef Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) alleged by the Plaintiff, conspired with the employees of the Defendant Company, embezzled a sum of KRW 111,639,600, including insurance premiums or cancellation refunds by deceiving the Plaintiff or forging relevant documents, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the aforesaid embezzlement.

B. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff, as an insurance solicitor of the subsidiary C branch of the Defendant Company, concluded multiple insurance contracts with the Defendant Company from March 8, 2006 to Defendant B through the Defendant Company from March 8, 2006. The Defendant B’s bank account (Account Number D; hereinafter “instant corporate bank account”) in the name of the Plaintiff.

(2) Defendant B, in the process of concluding and managing the Plaintiff’s insurance contract, committed the following crimes, and was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment on June 13, 2013 due to the crime of fraud, embezzlement, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of the above investigation document. A) Defendant B, even if having received the insurance premium from the Plaintiff, did not intend to pay it to the Defendant Company more than 40 times from March 1, 2007 to March 12, 2010, received total of 49,147,150 won from the Plaintiff as insurance premium, and acquired it. B) Defendant B, on June 2, 2008, submitted a written claim for payment due to the termination of the Plaintiff’s insurance contract that was forged to E, the employees of the subsidiary C branch of the Defendant Company, and acquired it by deceptioning KRW 11,342,679,79.

C) On January 24, 2008, Defendant B received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff as an insurance premium, and used it in his husband’s business fund at his own discretion while keeping the same in custody. [The fact that there is no ground for recognition, the entry in Eul’s evidence 1-2, 3, and Eul’s evidence 1-26, and 55-26, and 55-2, each of the arguments are different.