1. The part against the defendant B in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is filed.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants

A. The grounds for this part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company are as stated in Article 420(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the reasoning for this part is identical to that of the second instance judgment.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B, as the representative director operating the Defendant Company, has the obligation to distribute KRW 1,092,343,454, which is the Plaintiff’s share among the subsidies paid by the government, to the Plaintiff, but did not pay KRW 592,343,454, which is the remainder of KRW 592,343 (i.e., KRW 1,092,343,454-50,00). The Plaintiff was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 592,343,454, as the Plaintiff was negligent in performing his duties as the representative director of the Defendant Company due to arbitrarily consumed it for his personal use, bad faith, or gross negligence. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s embezzlement of the compensation paid by the government of the government of the Defendant Company, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the remainder of the Defendant’s embezzlement charges out of KRW 1,092,343,54,000.

(B) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.