1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance, which is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, each of the entries in the evidence No. 14-16, the witness F of the court of first instance, H's testimony, the first office of the court of first instance in the original city, and the second office in the court of first instance in the first instance, and each fact-finding results of the fact-finding with respect to the union B, which are not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion; and (b) except for adding the following judgment as to the assertion

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. As of June 28, 2005, the Defendant managed KRW 39,100,000 of the network D’s money in the bank account in the name of the deceased or another person’s name as shown in attached Table 1, as of June 28, 2005, and separately, as shown in attached Table 2, the Defendant managed KRW 703,625,193 in total of the network D’s money or KRW 780,55,240 in the network D’s account in the name of the designated person under the name of the deceased or another person, and embezzled the said money by arbitrarily withdrawing it.

The Defendant arbitrarily withdrawn and embezzled the amount of KRW 150,000 (= KRW 10,00,000 per account 10,000 x the number of accounts 15) of the network D, which was managed by using each account as set out in the attached Table 2 Nos. 1, 3, 10,14, 15, 17, 33, 49, 59, 60, 70, 77, 100, 100, and 103.

On April 18, 2005, the defendant collected 4,200,000 won from the network's post office deposit account, and embezzled it without depositing it into the selected person's account requested by the network D.

In addition to the above money, the Defendant managed the net D’s money of KRW 20,000,000 as the F’s account in the name of the designated parties.

Therefore, the Defendant and the Selection Cooperative jointly have a duty to return the network D money that the Defendant embezzled or managed to the Plaintiff as the heir of the network D as above.

B. Based on the reasoning of the judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 6-5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings.