1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim added by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap's entries and arguments as a whole:

The Plaintiff is an agricultural partnership incorporated under the Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises (hereinafter “Agricultural and Fisheries Business Entities Act”) on May 13, 201.

B. From May 13, 2011 to April 16, 2013, the Defendant registered as the Plaintiff’s representative director, and served as the Plaintiff’s representative director around that time.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Section 1-1, 8, and 9, the Plaintiff held an inaugural general meeting on May 13, 201 and confirmed that the Defendant completed the payment of KRW 22,50 million on May 12, 201; the Defendant deposited KRW 20 million borrowed from F on May 26, 201 into the Plaintiff’s account; the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million in the Plaintiff’s account; the Plaintiff did not have any asset up to that time; the Defendant collected KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff’s account on June 9, 201 and paid KRW 20 million to F on the same day.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant embezzled KRW 20 million of the Plaintiff’s money by using the Defendant’s personal debt repayment for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant borrowed and paid KRW 20 million out of the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff from F; and (b) on June 9, 2011, paid KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff’s account to F.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 20 million and its delay damages to the plaintiff as damages.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant loaned KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff’s account on May 26, 201, rather than the Plaintiff’s contribution, and that it was repaid by the Plaintiff on June 9, 2011.

As shown in the defendant's argument, Eul's 10 statement is merely a material that makes an ex post facto settlement of contributions in 2015, and it is difficult to believe it or otherwise recognize it.