1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 145,860 as well as 5% per annum from September 29, 2017 to August 29, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running marina in Seo-gu Incheon, and the Defendants are those who have been in charge of sales, etc. from the Plaintiff’s marina to December 2, 2016.

B. Defendant B stolen food of an amount equivalent to KRW 145,860, totaling 12 times between December 4, 2016 and December 23, 2016. Defendant C stolen food of an amount of KRW 47,550,000, totaling five times between November 29, 2016 and December 19, 2016. Defendant D stolen food of an amount of KRW 174,470,00, totaling nine times between December 4, 2016 and December 26, 2016.

On May 2, 2017, the Defendants issued a summary order of KRW 2,000,000 (hereinafter “instant summary order”) with Defendant B’s act of theft as seen above, Defendant C issued a fine of KRW 1,00,000, and Defendant D’s fine of KRW 2,000,000 (hereinafter “instant summary order”), and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff committed a theft of the total amount of KRW 62,157,230 (the result of the inventory inspection as of June 29, 2017), including food that is equivalent to the amount stated in the summary order of this case, in collusion with the Plaintiff’s service while serving in Et.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 62,157,230 and damages for delay.

B. According to the above facts, each theft committed by the Defendants stated in the summary order of this case constitutes tort against the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff, Defendant C is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff, Defendant C is 145,860 won, Defendant C is 47,50 won, Defendant D is 174,470 won, and damages for delay.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendants conspired to commit the above theft, but the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is a different difference.