1. Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed C jointly with the Plaintiff KRW 34,401,369, and KRW 10,000,000, out of the above amount.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the business of producing and distributing agricultural and forest products.

Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) is a juristic person established on April 2, 2009 for the purpose of distributing agricultural products and processed agricultural products; D is a person whose representative director had served from the establishment of the Defendant to February 15, 2012; and the Appointor C is a representative director of the Defendant’s affiliated employees from the time of the establishment of the Defendant’s establishment to February 15, 2012, who actually worked as the Defendant’s representative director from February 15, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to process B from February 201 to April 15, 201, and the Plaintiff sent B 1,890 g to the Defendant.

However, while having kept B 1,890 boxes owned by the Plaintiff, the Appointed C arbitrarily sold and embezzled B 1,5390,000 won at the market price of the B 1,22,00,000 won to the Taenam Agricultural Partnership and D 1,000,000 won, and the remaining 351,000s were released from the Defendant’s warehouse around July 30, 2011.

C. On May 29, 2015, the Selection C was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for four months of imprisonment with prison labor in the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 3, and the plaintiff's assertion 1 as to the purport of the whole pleadings by the parties concerned, Eul has the obligation to compensate the plaintiff for damages arising from tort since it embezzled B owned by the plaintiff. The Appointor C is also obligated to compensate the plaintiff jointly and severally with the Appointor C, since it was the defendant's employee at the time of the above crime, since the defendant's employee was actually operating the defendant at the time of the above crime. The Appointor D was not only the representative director at the time of the above crime but also aided and abetted the above crime by neglecting the direction and supervision of the Appointor C. Thus, the Appointor C and the plaintiff are jointly liable to compensate for damages.