1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the part concerning Defendant I’s “Defendant B” in Chapter 6, Chapter 16, of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as the part concerning “Defendant B,” and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated, except for the determination as to the Defendant’s additional assertion as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment on the defendant's additional assertion

A. At the time of preparing the written statement of performance of this case, the Defendant: F, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and H, who is the employee of the Plaintiff, drafted a written statement of performance of this case under the circumstance that the Defendant’s total amount embezzled by the Defendant constitutes approximately KRW 150,00,000 (an amount equivalent to the Defendant’s retirement pay of KRW 110,000,000 equivalent to the Defendant’s retirement pay of KRW 15,000,000 equivalent to the amount equivalent to KRW 30,000,000, which the Defendant planned to transfer to the Plaintiff from the written statement of performance of this case) as alleged by the Plaintiff.

However, the entire amount embezzled by the Defendant is equivalent to approximately KRW 6,980,000, and in this case, the statement of execution in this case written on the premise that the entire amount embezzled by the Defendant corresponds to approximately KRW 150,000,000, may be deemed to have been written by the Defendant in the state of mistake as to the important part of the contents of the legal act. As such, the Defendant’s delivery of the preparatory document dated October 31, 2017 on the ground of the above mistake is revoked pursuant to Article 109(1) of the Civil Act.

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier, in light of the following: (a) the phrase of the instant written statement of execution was written by the Defendant himself/herself on his/her own pen and the suspicion that F and H were threatening the Defendant, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution by the prosecution to the effect that he/she was suspected of having committed an offense; and (b) the fact that the Defendant embezzled the Plaintiff’s money, in fact, actually, exists.