1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures solar products and solar power generation facilities. Defendant B is a person who was employed from June 2018 to March 2019 as the Plaintiff’s intra-company director, and Defendant C is a person who registered as Defendant B’s spouse with the trade name “D”.

B. While Defendant B was in office in the Plaintiff Company, he managed the Company’s funds with passbooks, authorized certificates, etc. in the Plaintiff’s name. From September 27, 2018 to October 29, 2018, the sum of KRW 270,800,000 was deposited from the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s name to Defendant C or D’s account, and only KRW 172,525,90 was deposited in the Plaintiff’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant B conspired with Defendant C, the spouse, while holding office as the Plaintiff’s internal director and managing the Company’s funds (i.e., KRW 270,80,000 in total amount deposited from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of name C, etc. - 172,525,90 in total amount deposited from the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s name of the Plaintiff’s name - Defendant B committed a tort of embezzlement by arbitrarily using the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s name of the Plaintiff’s name.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay the amount of embezzlement and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The judgment is based on the premise that the existence of the harmful act by intention and negligence and the burden of proving the causal relationship between the act and the occurrence of damages is the person who asserts this. Thus, even if the money was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account and delivered to the Defendant, such fact alone cannot be presumed to have been embezzled by the Defendant, or that the Defendant bears the responsibility to prove and prove the proper use of the withdrawn money.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da38692, Sept. 28, 2001). However, the Plaintiff submitted.