1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Company invested together by C, the Defendant, and D, and was established on January 15, 201, and closed on November 13, 201. During the foregoing period, C was the representative director, and the Defendant was the vice president and the person in charge of accounting and accounting.

B. On March 2013, C filed a complaint that the Defendant embezzled KRW 7,347,750,487 of the Plaintiff Company’s funds during the said period of service, but the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office prosecuted only KRW 558,350,150 of the above funds as occupational embezzlement, etc. on October 28, 2013, and imposed a disposition of unsuspecting (Evidence of Evidence) as to the remainder of the complaint.

However, on July 22, 2016, the court rendered a judgment of conviction only for KRW 173 million (Seoul Northern District Court 2016No330) and the above judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court.

C. Meanwhile, in order to verify the Defendant’s embezzlement, C provided the Plaintiff Company’s receipt and disbursement of money and the financial accounting report, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company’s account books”) to Filiation Accounting Firm from November 2013 to November 2014, and requested accounting audit.

C Around December 2014, according to the audit report by the Felim Accounting Firm (hereinafter “the audit report of this case”), the Defendant filed an additional complaint against the Defendant on or around December 2014 by asserting that the sum of the amount of money transfer between the Plaintiff Company’s account books and the Plaintiff Company’s account books are 10,893,102,045 won, and that it was both embezzled and embezzled by the Defendant.

E. On October 7, 2015, the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition that was not guilty of the Plaintiff’s above accusation (defluence of evidence). C appealed appealed, but the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office dismissed the appeal on February 24, 2016.

C filed an application for a ruling on the disposition of the prosecutor's suspicion (defluence of evidence), but the Seoul High Court decided to dismiss the application for a ruling on July 1, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4.