1. Defendant B’s KRW 47,612,040 as well as 5% per annum from October 17, 2014 to October 19, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B and C are between elementary school-friendly districts, and the Plaintiff is an elementary school of Defendant B and C.

B. On June 13, 2014, Defendant B was convicted of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by the Seoul High Court and was sentenced to imprisonment in the former prison.

C. On August 2014, Defendant B filed a complaint with the Military Police Station for embezzlement, stating that “A around February 2013, Defendant B, who was nominated by larceny, etc., was living in the original room where C entered into a lease agreement with KRW 5 million and KRW 600,000 per month of rent, and Defendant B did not receive a refund of the deposit for the lease of the above studio from the investigative agency, and C was unable to arbitrarily use the remainder of the deposit for the lease after deducting the overdue rent from C, with the refund of KRW 2 million.”

On September 7, 2014, the Plaintiff was investigated as a witness of the embezzlement case against C at the Sinsan Police Station at the end of the end of the year, and was asked from Defendant B to find and use the remainder of the lease deposit, and stated to C that the Plaintiff was using the remainder of the lease deposit. On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant B made a request for a comparison investigation at Defendant B and the Jeonju Prison.

E. On October 7, 2014, around 09:40 on October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff met E and F, a police officer belonging to the Military Police Station D and, around 10:10 on the same day, entered the conference room of the previous correctional institution, and was seated in the order of F, Plaintiff, and E, a police officer of the previous correctional institution, was moving Defendant B to the counsel meeting room, and Defendant B was able to ma the Plaintiff in a part adjacent to the above book.

F. The police officer F stated, prior to initiating a substitutional investigation, Defendant B stated that “C had ordered the Plaintiff to pay the lease deposit that was returned by the investigative agency, and the Plaintiff stated that Defendant B used the deposit to be paid by C on the ground that it was used to recover the lease deposit.”