The judgment below

The part concerning the conjunctive claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal on the primary claim

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's primary claim on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant used all of the 544,724,146 won of the 544,724,146 won of the 544,724,146 won of the 546 won of the 544,724,146 won of the 544,724,146 won of the 544,724,146 won of the 544,724,146 won of the 544,7

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the conjunctive claim

A. According to the reasoning and the reasoning of the judgment below on the basis of the scope of liability for damages and the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant is liable for damages caused by the tort to the plaintiff unless the defendant proves the grounds and legitimate usage of the right to withdraw the plaintiff's deposit, as the defendant withdraws the plaintiff's deposit even after the defendant was dismissed from office, and thus, should be refunded the amount of the deposit equivalent to the plaintiff's liability for damages caused by the tort to the plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just.