Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff who is ordered to pay below.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Codefendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”) worked for the Plaintiff’s employee as the general manager of power distribution in the construction site (hereinafter “the instant construction site”) being supplied by the Korea Electric Power Corporation from December 2, 2015 to December 2018, and requested the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant’s salary by preparing a false statement of “one major and steering factory expenses” as if the Defendant had worked as the Plaintiff’s daily worker during the instant construction site from February 2016 to April 2016, and from June 2016 to March 2017.

B. From February 2016 to March 2017, the Plaintiff set the money indicated in the “total Wage Amount” column in the separate sheet to the Defendant’s account at a 12-time period from February 2016 to March 2017, and paid the money after deducting the Party A’s age from the said money.

The sum of the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant during the above period is KRW 32,050,000.

C. The Defendant remitted part of the deposited money to B, and some of the deposited money was used by himself.

[Grounds for recognition] Class A 1 through 13, 17, 18 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with the plaintiff for damages, since he was aware that the defendant was not in the status of receiving the benefits from the plaintiff, and was able to receive the benefits from the plaintiff, either through conspiracy with the plaintiff or by aiding and abetting the plaintiff to receive the benefits from the plaintiff, and at least he was aware of the illegal activities in B, but he was remitted with the plaintiff with the intention or negligence.

In this regard, the defendant only took advantage of the convenience of remitting money to his account to B, so it does not constitute a tort due to no intention or negligence.