1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of premise;

A. On March 5, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a premium agreement with E with regard to a laundry factory located in D (hereinafter “instant laundry factory”) and paid 45 million won premium to E.

B. On April 13, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between F and F to lease the instant laundry factory with the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 11 million per month, and the lease term from April 18, 2009 to April 17, 2010, and paid KRW 10 million to F.

C. On September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff registered the instant laundry factory as the location of the instant laundry factory with the trade name “G”.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 5-1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 7, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 28, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since March 2009, the Plaintiff acquired the instant laundry factory from C to pay the premium of the instant laundry factory to E at the request of C and the deposit money for the lease of the instant laundry factory to F, and entrusted C with the operation of the instant laundry factory.

B. However, in collusion with C, the Defendant, who was in charge of the accounting of the instant laundry factory, received the sales amount of the instant laundry factory in the name of the Defendant and embezzled KRW 371,552,014 by arbitrarily using it.

C. The Plaintiff seek against the Defendant the payment of KRW 250,00,000 among the Defendant’s embezzlement amounting to KRW 371,552,014, as a result of the return of unjust enrichment, and damages for delay.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. On April 9, 2010, the Defendant asserted by the 1st party regarding the Defendant’s main defense, and concluded a non-prosecution agreement with the Plaintiff on April 9, 2010 regarding the sales amount of the laundry factory, which would not bring a civil or criminal lawsuit. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was brought against the non-committee agreement.