1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 4,662,100 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from May 14, 2014 to July 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for the guarantee of personal identity with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Defendant’s guarantor, the Defendant’s surety, the purchase amount of insurance amount of KRW 75,00,00, and the insurance period from October 30, 2013 to October 29, 2015, in order to secure direct damage to property suffered by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor by larceny, robbery, fraud, embezzlement, or breach of trust on behalf of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, or by taking advantage of the Defendant’s occupational position.

B. The Defendant, as the branch manager of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor B, received KRW 4,662,100, which is equivalent to the value-added tax on April 4, 2013, from the Customer, and embezzled without paying it, while being kept for the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

C. On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff claimed insurance money under the above fidelity Guarantee Insurance Contract against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,662,100 to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, thereby subrogated for the relevant damage compensation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including a branch number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,662,100 for indemnity and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from May 14, 2014 to July 24, 2014, the day following the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling this and ordering the payment of the above money.