1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,799,477 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 9, 2013 to March 7, 2017, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates the automobile parts sales business, and the Defendant served as an employee in charge of accounting in the Plaintiff Company until June 2013, which was closed by the Plaintiff.

B. The actual director of the Plaintiff Company is C, and C’s wife was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company until January 4, 2013, and C’s 7th degree of Ma was employed as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company by January 4, 2013.

(E) Even after having taken office as the representative, it actually operates the Plaintiff Company as the representative director (E).

E, between January 15, 201 and April 8, 2013, during the period from January 15, 2011 to April 8, 2013, E embezzled KRW 58,663,182 for the Defendant, who is an employee in charge of accounting, to deposit the price of goods into the personal account of E, and then embezzled the price of goods deposited from the customer by personal use.

Since then, the defendant prepared to the plaintiff a written self-statement with the following contents:

F GH I JK [founded Grounds for Recognition] A, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2-5, Evidence No. 3-1-2, Evidence No. 3-4, Evidence No. 8, Evidence No. 9, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, the witness’s testimony, and the purport of the whole argument No. 3

2. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the defendant, as an employee in charge of the plaintiff company's accounting, aided and abetted the plaintiff to make up for the embezzlement of E by knowing that he would use the goods of the customer's account deposited in his own account as seen above. Thus, as a joint tortfeasor, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the act of embezzlement of E as a joint tortfeasor.

(3) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has promised to exempt the defendant from the liability for damages, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the defendant's assertion is not accepted).