1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a non-corporate association composed of senior citizens residing in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The defendant served as the chairperson from February 13, 2009 to December 29, 2010.

B. While the Defendant is the president of the Plaintiff, he managed the Plaintiff’s public funds using an account opened in the name of the Defendant.

C. On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff C alleged that the Defendant embezzled KRW 2,457,122 while managing the Plaintiff’s public funds, and filed a complaint with the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office against the Defendant as embezzlement for occupational purposes. The Prosecutor in charge did not impose a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant (Evidence of Evidence).

C filed an application with the Seoul High Court for the foregoing non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor, but the Seoul High Court decided to dismiss it on October 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 3 and 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion took place at the Plaintiff’s president, and thus, he returned KRW 3,490,853 of the Plaintiff’s public funds in his custody to the Plaintiff, despite the fact that he returned KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2010, he embezzled KRW 2,990,853 in total by arbitrarily using or refusing to return the remaining money.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,990,853 for damages incurred by the above tort and damages for delay.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, was rendered a decision that he had no suspicion of embezzlement of the Plaintiff’s public funds, it is insufficient to recognize that the entries of evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 7, and 8 are not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed a tort of embezzlement of KRW 2,90,853, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.