1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,232,00 as well as 5% per annum from January 9, 2018 to July 12, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an organization consisting of sectional owners of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment, and the Defendant is the female president of the instant apartment from June 2004 to May 2012, 201, who has engaged in the daily funeral operation using incidental facilities and welfare facilities of the apartment, advertising management in the complex, management of recycled products, etc.

B. On January 23, 2009, the Defendant was indicted as Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2017Ra1309 and was convicted on October 12, 201, and was sentenced to a judgment of conviction on the following facts: (a) the Defendant voluntarily consumed KRW 973,00 in a name-saving gift not related to the operation of women’s association or apartment, while serving as the president of women’s association in the apartment complex; (b) the income generated by using ancillary facilities and welfare facilities in the apartment complex was kept for the occupants of the apartment complex; and (c) until November 17, 2011, he/she embezzled the total sum of KRW 40,732,80 as shown in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes by November 17, 201. However, the prosecutor and the Defendant appealed on the above judgment, but the appellate court rendered a judgment of dismissal and became final and conclusive as it is

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above embezzlement amounting to KRW 40,732,800 as compensation for damages incurred by the tort, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Defendant’s defense asserts to the effect that: (a) KRW 18 million on February 10, 2010; (b) KRW 10 million on October 15, 201; and (c) KRW 7.5 million on November 7, 201, out of the summary of Defendant’s defense, the Defendant already returned to the Plaintiff; or (d) returned to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s intended business.

B. In the original civil trial, even if it is not bound by the fact-finding of the criminal trial, the criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis.