1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court concerning this case is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or modification as follows.

The witness of the first instance judgment of 4th 8th 4th 7th 7th 1th 1th 4th 1th 4th 1th 4th 4th 4th 8th 4th 8th 4th 8th 4th 8th 4th 4th 5th 5th 8th 5th 8th 5th 8th 5th 8th 5th 8th 8th 4th "it is difficult to see that the plaintiff was entrusted with the authority to pay and collect the price at the time of the transaction with the defendant company," "E and C have paid the price at the passbook in the name of the defendant company in trading with the defendant company," "E and C had no fact that the plaintiff had embezzled the above 9,480,000 won."

In light of the above facts, the defendant company's act of offsetting the above money cannot be deemed to have been negligent since there was a ground to deem that the plaintiff embezzled the above money, and therefore, the defendant company did not bear the liability of compensation for damages due to default other than the unpaid contract amount of KRW 9,480,00,00. Thus, as seen above, since the consignment relation between the plaintiff and E and C is not recognized between the plaintiff and the defendant company, and the defendant did not receive or consent to the above consultation, the plaintiff did not pay the above amount of KRW 9,480,00 to the defendant company.

Even if this is merely a default on E and C, and cannot be seen as embezzlement or default on the Defendant Company. However, the Defendant Company is deemed to have embezzled the Plaintiff’s above KRW 9,480,000, and the Defendant Company’s negligence is recognized by setting off the automatic claim, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant Company is without merit.

The same 5 pages 13-14.