1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the claim extended by this court against Defendant A and Defendant C.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff as the parties concerned is a company with the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. plastic sheet (referred to as “Pteet,” hereinafter), which is used for the transportation, loading, unloading, and storage of cargo.

Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a company that manufactures, processes, sells, etc. synthetic resin products. Defendant C is an internal director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C is a representative director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C is a representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. D’s breach of trust has been promoted to E on January 1, 2010 as an employee of the Plaintiff, and has been in charge of delivery contracts and sales with the customer.

However, around January 2012, in violation of the Plaintiff’s occupational duties to raise his living expenses, etc., Defendant C violated the Plaintiff’s occupational duties, and provided that “The purchase price of the table to be sold at a company level less than 50% less than the market price without issuing a tax invoice shall be paid in cash.” On or around the fourth day of the same month, the Plaintiff’s soft was sold to the Defendant Company for a total of KRW 110,000,000, and used the price for his own living expenses, etc., and until August 30, 2013, the Defendant Company acquired the economic benefits equivalent to KRW 1,016,262,000 in total by arbitrarily disposing of the soft owned by the Plaintiff, and caused property damage equivalent to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “this case’sless transaction”). D thereby, on September 30, 2014, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for one year and six months by imprisonment at the Suwon District Court (No. 2014Gohap366), and this judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 22 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the testimony of witness D of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The evidence submitted to determine the claim against Defendant B alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B participated in or aided the instantless material transaction, and any other evidence to view it otherwise.