1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff: (a) was a person who engages in franchise business with the trade name of “C” and was engaged in franchise business with the trademark “D” from March 5, 2014 to enter into a franchise agreement and concluded a franchise agreement by employing the Defendant to provide consultation and management services; (b) the Defendant, despite that the franchis have to deposit the amount paid by the franchis with the Plaintiff, he/she embezzled at least KRW 435,830,000, including the franchis that should be deposited into the Plaintiff’s management company by receiving the franchis from the franchis to the Defendant’s personal account and using the franchis for personal purposes; and (c) claimed the Defendant to pay KRW 300,000,000,000, which is part of the amount of damage.

In full view of the entries and arguments in Gap's evidence 6-2, Gap's evidence 6-2, 3, 6 through 18, 20 through 22, 25 through 34, 36, 38 through 40, 44, 46, 47, Eul's evidence 4-1, and Eul's evidence 5-1, and the whole purport of the arguments, the defendant: (i) as the head office of the franchise business operated by the plaintiff from July 15, 2014 to September 23, 2014, the defendant recognized the fact that the head office was exempted from expenses for the above work and received expenses for the franchise to be paid to the defendant's private account during the above work period, or that the defendant should use expenses for the above personal account to be charged to the defendant's head office to be embezzled to be 15, 205, and 15, the defendant accepted the above fact that he was embezzled to be charged to the defendant's private account and embezzled to be charged to 25.