1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 4, 2012, the amount of KRW 5.5 billion was withdrawn from the East Securities Account under the name of the Plaintiff (F at the time of the Plaintiff’s trade name): among those, KRW 4.5 billion was deposited into the account under the name of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) on April 5, 2012.

B. The above KRW 4.5 billion deposited in the account under Defendant B’s name was entirely withdrawn from April 6, 2012 to April 10, 2012. Of them, KRW 3.8 billion withdrawn on April 10, 2012 was withdrawn as KRW 3.8 billion cashier’s checks with KRW 1.0 million and KRW 10 million.

The said checks were exchanged in cash at the bank counter until April 30, 2012 by Defendant E or Defendant E’s branch.

C. At the time of April 2012, Defendant C was the representative director of Defendant B, and Defendant D was the director of Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. At the time of the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, G or the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, who had been the actual manager of the Plaintiff Company, committed a crime of embezzlement of KRW 4.5 billion by taking out money laundering in the said manner by taking a deduction of the Plaintiff Company’s funds, and the Defendants, despite having been well aware or could have been aware of such circumstances, participated in the tort of G, etc. by lending the account in the name of the Defendant B or by assisting in money laundering such as withdrawal from bank.

Therefore, as a joint tortfeasor, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff as part of the damages caused by the said tort.

B. In full view of all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that G et al. embezzled the above KRW 4.5 billion, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge this.

Even if such fact is recognized, the account in Defendant B’s name was used for embezzlement.

The Defendants constitute G, etc. solely on the basis that Defendant E exchanged the check withdrawn from the account held in the name of Defendant B in cash.