The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The fact that the plaintiff is a company whose main business is the design, construction, etc. of the interior test, and the defendant is the spouse of C who served as the plaintiff's internal director from December 23, 2008 to July 5, 2017, or is not a dispute between the parties, or can be recognized based on the evidence A Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The spouse of the Plaintiff’s assertion C, from around 2008 to 2012, paid the Plaintiff’s excessive construction cost to the subcontractor, and embezzled the funds received and kept in custody by returning some of them. From around 2012, the Plaintiff’s spouse embezzled the construction cost kept by cash or check from the Plaintiff’s customers.

In addition, C purchased households to be arranged to individual home and embezzled the amount of KRW 19,800,000 as the Plaintiff’s funds.

The Defendant provided a bank account to C so that it can be used for embezzlement and acquired real estate with embezzled money, etc. In other words, the Defendant actively participated in the above embezzlement. The amount embezzled in collusion with the Defendant by C reaches KRW 9,04,296,098 as indicated in the following table.

The embezzlement amount of the account embezzlement used for embezzlement method is equivalent to 19,643, 496, 200, 618, 200, 105, 340, 394, 1,435, 156, 504, 298, and 2,840,540, 732, 342, 342, and 19,80,000, the sum of 19,80,80,000, 291, 2,840,50, 296,000, and 2,840,50,503,000, out of the amount of the above embezzlement due to the tort damages to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, in collusion with C, embezzled the Plaintiff’s non-funds, etc. in light of each of the evidence Nos. 14 through 16, Eul’s evidence Nos. 11 and 12, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

or C’s embezzlement.