1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in particular or unsatisfyed in this court.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Defendants embezzled KRW 53,56,018 of the Plaintiff’s company’s funds from June 2, 2009 to November 23, 2012 by holding that the Defendants embezzled KRW 270,000,000 out of the said money as a joint tortfeasor, while working as the head of the Plaintiff’s factory, the head of the division, and the staff in charge of accounting, etc.; thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 270,00,000,000 and damages for delay recognized by Defendant B among the money embezzled to the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) and the entire purport of each party’s personal examination of Defendant B and D, i.e., in a criminal case where the inside director F of the Plaintiff Company filed a complaint against the Defendants due to occupational embezzlement, etc., the prosecutor’s office decided that Defendant B leased and operated the Plaintiff Company’s factory from the actual representative E around April 2008, and paid rent to the Plaintiff Company and actually operated the Plaintiff Company’s factory, while E received rent from the Defendant B by taking over the management right of the Plaintiff Company’s factory, on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants embezzled the Plaintiff Company’s funds (Evidence of evidence).