1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant B is the Plaintiff 213,345.

1. The relevant part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted.

However, from June 11, 2007 to December 6, 2011, the part of the first instance court’s 3th judgment “.... Defendant B supplied the Plaintiff’s goods to customers, such as L, etc. at least 111 times as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, and embezzled KRW 151,968,830 in total by receiving payment in the bank account (Account Number U) in the name of the Defendant B, not the Plaintiff’s account, and embezzled KRW 151,968,830 in total, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 from February 12, 2007 to September 26, 201, and embezzled KRW 61,376,40 in total, and sentenced Defendant B to imprisonment with labor for the said criminal case (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant District Court’s 2013Mo3675, Apr. 1, 2015”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. After completing business registration under the trade name similar to D, which is the trade name before the Plaintiff’s change, the Defendants: (a) received and embezzled the amount of KRW 350,955,560 from the Defendant’s account in the name of Defendant C by providing the Plaintiff’s products without permission; and (b) the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 350,95,560 per each of the above joint tort and the damages for delay thereof.

B. As recognized in the relevant criminal cases by Defendant B, as follows: ① Defendant B received the price of the goods from the account in the name of Defendant B to the customer who does not request a tax invoice; and embezzled KRW 151,968,830 in the form of non-data transaction; ② selling recyclable materials in G; (b) reported the lower sales price to the Plaintiff; and (c) reported the difference in the difference in the name of Defendant B.