1. The Defendant’s KRW 349,654,098 and its annual rate from December 14, 2012 to February 6, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff has conducted financial transactions with the Defendant under the name of the representative B.

C From June 27, 2001 to December 2, 2009, as the Plaintiff’s accounting member, it has been in charge of the Plaintiff’s financial management, including deposit transactions with the Defendant bank.

C terminated the regular deposit account of KRW 70,000,000 in the name of B on March 11, 2005, and then remitted the money to D who is the husband or used the money for personal purposes, such as the expenses for the operation of the restaurant in the Mona.

C Attached Form 14 times from around that time to December 11, 2009 by a similar method.

1. Each deposit listed in the table (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant deposits” and individually referred to as “each of the instant deposits”) or a sum of KRW 1,389,115,317 was voluntarily withdrawn and used, together with D on October 28, 2011, which was convicted of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), and the judgment became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap Nos. 1-5, 17, Eul No. 1-12, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination on the claim for return of deposit

A. The plaintiff asserts that the parties concerned claim the return of each of the deposits set forth in Nos. 1 to 9,11 to 14 of this case to the defendant.

On this issue, the defendant asserts as follows.

① The withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s deposit constitutes an expression agency act or the Defendant’s return of deposit to C constitutes repayment to quasi-Possessor of the claim, and thus, the Defendant was effectively exempted from liability.

② The deposit claims No. 1 and 2 of this case were extinguished by prescription.

③ If it is assessed that the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Defendant still remains, C assumes a misrepresentation of the Plaintiff’s proxy, thereby causing damage to the Defendant by withdrawing the amount of the Plaintiff’s deposit from the Defendant constitutes tort against the Defendant.

The plaintiff is the employer of C, and the defendant bears the employer's responsibility for C's act.