The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) E (Representative F, hereinafter "E") Co., Ltd.

(2) The Plaintiff is a company specializing in manufacturing and selling mid-term equipment parts (sealed sealed products of construction mid-term G). The Plaintiff is a corporation established at the local level in China, and a subsidiary with 100% equity shares. (2) Defendant B is a person who worked at the Plaintiff’s general interest from August 201 to January 2015. Defendant C is a person who actually worked for the Plaintiff as a manager of H who delivers washing materials to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C was a person who actually worked for the Plaintiff as a manager of H who supplies washing materials to the Plaintiff. The same year from February 2015, when Defendant B retired from the Plaintiff as embezzlement case of Plaintiff Company’s funds.

3. Until April, 300, Defendant D is a representative of “I” that supplies office supplies to the Plaintiff, and Defendant D is a representative of “I” and a person who was a representative director of the JJ (hereinafter “J”) established around 2013 along with Defendant B.

3. On March 3, 2015, Defendant C withdrawn the above bill from 11:14:04 per 50,04 per the same day, and 11:5:56 per 10,000 per the same day as a check, and deliver it to K or Defendant D at his/her discretion, and the same month.

4. On the 300,000 bill and the 300,000 won bill of the same month were withdrawn as a check and delivered at will to the above K or Defendant D and embezzled the above bill in total (hereinafter “the embezzlement of this case”).

4 With respect to the instant embezzlement claim that Defendant C carried out from March 3, 2015 to October 10, 2015, the Defendants asserted that the said claim was appropriated for the repayment of the claim equivalent to the 1.56 million bill against the Plaintiff Company by J, but the aforementioned assertion is without merit.

(2) As examined below, the above 1.2 million bill has been substantially reverted to Defendant D, not J, or ③ has been reverted to FamilyJ.

Even if the legal personality of the J, which is only a private business of Defendant D, exists, and as such, Defendant D received from the Plaintiff without any legal ground.