1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant C’s KRW 7,157,800 on October 2017, as well as on the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (A) changed its trade name from D to December 23, 2016.

A) Defendant B is a company that manufactures and sells infant products. (2) Defendant B is a person who worked as a business director of the Plaintiff Company; Defendant C is a total manager of the E-Maz Points; and Defendant C was a person who operated the Plaintiff Company’s total market in the Seoul metropolitan area from July 2012 to January 2016.

B. Around November 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants embezzled the Plaintiff’s goods stored in the warehouse of the E-Uk branch managed by Defendant C, and the Defendants filed a complaint through occupational embezzlement, etc. (2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant B with the investigative agency as the crime of occupational embezzlement on or around December 13, 2017, with respect to the Defendant B (hereinafter “instant complaint cancellation letter”). Around December 13, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the investigative agency a letter of revocation of the complaint stating that “The complainant agreed that both parties agree, and that no civil or criminal lawsuit or objection is raised, shall be brought against the Defendant.”

3) Meanwhile, even though a non-suspected disposition was issued against Defendant C on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove the crime of occupational embezzlement, Defendant C was indicted on the ground that the purchase of the goods embezzled by Defendant C from Defendant B may constitute a stolen crime. Ultimately, Defendant C was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million on September 19, 2018 by the Suwon District Court Decision 2015238, stating that “The total amount of KRW 7,157,800 embezzled by Defendant B acquired stolen goods despite being aware of such fact,” and the above summary order became final and conclusive on October 13, 2018 (hereinafter “instant summary order”).

(ii) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 5-2, 8, Eul evidence 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff.