1. The Defendant’s KRW 505,072,321 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from May 9, 2019 to May 31, 2019, and the following.

1. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the whole oral argument, the defendant's act of occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust of the defendant constitutes a tort against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 505,072,321 won (=471,243,062 won) to the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 259 times from August 22, 2008 to May 12, 2016, for embezzlement and embezzlement of total amount of KRW 471,243,062 won by arbitrarily consuming the plaintiff's total amount of money, and from September 27, 2008 to February 10, 2015, in violation of his/her occupational duty, thereby acquiring the profits equivalent to KRW 33,829,259 and suffered losses equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the defendant's act of occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust of the defendant constitutes a tort against the plaintiff.

B. On November 18, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 31,750,000 to the Plaintiff on November 18, 2018, which ought to be appropriated for the repayment of the original amount out of the damages. On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the said money was appropriated for the repayment of interest on the damages, and that the damages exist as it is.

In the case of appropriation of performance to the principal, the order of appropriation is stipulated in Article 479 of the Civil Act, and Article 476 of the same Act as to appropriation of performance does not apply mutatis mutandis to the expenses, expenses, interest, and principal, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, it shall be appropriated in the order of expenses, interest, and principal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da12871, 12888, May 10, 2002, etc.). As to the instant case, the health care unit and the Defendant paid KRW 31,750,00 to the Plaintiff on November 18, 2018 did not dispute between the parties, but there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the said money to the principal of the damage compensation. Therefore, the said money should be appropriated in the order of expenses, interest, and originals pursuant to Article 476 of the Civil Act. The Defendant’s final embezzlement date (see, e.g., May 12, 2016) and the date of the Defendant’s final