1. The Defendant’s KRW 149,621,600 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 27, 2015 to August 17, 2015, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the main business of manufacturing, processing, selling, etc. of all kinds of textile materials, such as amnestys, paintings, etc., and the Defendant is a company with the main business of manufacturing, manufacturing, selling, and selling pages.

B. C, working in the former factory management division, is the Plaintiff’s name from July 2010 to April 2013, 2013, as a raw material producing 'OE company’, by extracting 'cama', which is a longer fiber, from the original surface of the street, which was kept in the said factory more than 16 times in the name of the Plaintiff.

The defendant was sold to the defendant by the so-called “unmaterial transaction” method without preparing any transaction-related document in total 229,00 km, and was transferred to the account of one’s friendship D on July 20, 2010 and September 7, 2010 thereafter to one’s own personal account.

(hereinafter “this case’s trade”). C.

C The details of sale of old-day to the Defendant through the instant old-day transaction are as indicated in the “day”, “amount of release,” “price,” “unit price for non-data transaction,” and “money payer” in the attached list. The price of old-day sold by the Plaintiff to the Defendant by the time of each transaction is as indicated in the “normal transaction unit price.”

C paid KRW 32,222,00 to the Plaintiff by means of offsetting the Plaintiff’s claim, such as retirement pay, etc. that the Plaintiff would receive from the Plaintiff while withdrawing from the Plaintiff Company on October 31, 2014, as compensation for damages arising from the trade in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness C's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, in light of the details and method of the Trade of the Labor Day of this case between C and the Defendant, the Labor Day of this case is deemed to have been embezzled in collusion with the Defendant, or embezzled at least C’s Labor Day.