1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,874,704 as well as 5% per annum from March 6, 2012 to April 8, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 20, 2009, the Defendant and C entered into a joint business and investment contract with the content that they jointly intend to jointly operate the private teaching institute business, and after establishing the Plaintiff on October 16, 2009 under the said contract, the Defendant was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant, as the representative director of the Plaintiff, was engaged in the Plaintiff’s business management and fund management. A dispute over the management of funds occurred between C and C, and resigned from the Plaintiff’s representative director on April 24, 2012. D, as C’s spouse, was appointed as the Plaintiff’s representative director.

C. On October 16, 2009, the Defendant was indicted as the Defendant on the charge that “The Defendant embezzled the sum of KRW 290,371,905 from October 16, 2009 to March 6, 2012 for personal debt and installment payments,” which read “the Defendant, as the representative director of the Plaintiff, embezzled the sum of KRW 290,371,90 for 418 times from October 16, 2009 to March 6, 2012,” and the said court convicted the Defendant of all the above criminal facts on July 18, 2014, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for one year.

The Defendant appealed against the above judgment of the first instance court as the District Court 2014No1733, and the appellate court embezzled total of KRW 47,874,704 over 55 times from October 16, 2009 to November 21, 2011.

"The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months or 2 years of suspension of execution" and the above judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant could recognize the facts of embezzlement while keeping KRW 47,874,704 of the plaintiff's funds in the course of business. Thus, the defendant is about the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to perform since March 6, 2012, which the plaintiff sought after the date of tort, as compensation for damages caused by the tort.