1. The Defendant’s KRW 296,630,730 as well as 5% per annum from March 21, 2014 to November 27, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts following the acknowledgement of facts are recognized, either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence 5 (including the serial number) by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. The Defendant has been working for the Plaintiff Company as an internal director from May 16, 2013 to March 21, 2014, and has overall control over personnel management, fund management, and general performance of duties on behalf of the Plaintiff Company.

B. While working in the Plaintiff Company, the Defendant released KRW 56,00,500 in total from the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Plaintiff Company from July 30, 2013 to January 17, 2014 as short-term loans; ② transferred KRW 38,614,00 in total under the name of D and E’s salary from June 5, 2013 to March 5, 2014; ③ transferred KRW 38,614,00 in total under the name of D and E’s salary; and ③ from July 15, 2013 to March 21, 2014, the business allowance for the employees of the Plaintiff Company transferred KRW 68%, but exceeds KRW 127,016,203 in total, and ④ transferred KRW 127,000 in total to G on December 27, 2013.

The defendant received money equivalent to 2% of the difference from F after the above transfer.

C. D and E do not have worked for the Plaintiff Company, and D are the mother of the Defendant.

On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff received KRW 100 million from G to his/her personal account, and transferred the amount of KRW 25 million to his/her personal account. The Plaintiff returned the amount of KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff Company’s account.

2. Determination

A. The above facts are true. ① The defendant did not explain persuasively about the reasons and procedure for borrowing the money withdrawn under the above short-term loan, and the above short-term loan is still not returned. ② The defendant explained that the payment of false benefits D and E was made to collect surplus funds for the plaintiff company or H, but there is no circumstance that H and the plaintiff company returned the said money to the plaintiff company's funds, ③ there is no circumstance that H and the plaintiff company returned the money to the plaintiff company's funds, ③ the difference of KRW 75 million received from G, which is KRW 100 million, to the customers of the plaintiff company.