1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff primarily claimed the investment principal and profits related to the textile textile sales business as the settlement amount, and as a preliminary claim, the Plaintiff claimed compensation for property damage and consolation money due to the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement.

The court of first instance dismissed the part of the plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim, and partly accepted the part of the conjunctive claim for damages for property.

Since only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for property damage.

2. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be found in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 (including additional numbers).

The Defendant operated “D” as a sales store of textile machinery from November 10 to September 2013, 2010, and entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff, etc., that purchased and sold the textile machinery and equally divided sales profits (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”) with the Plaintiff, etc., who operated the sales business of used textile machinery in China, from the latter part of 2010 to December 201, 201. The details of the partnership agreement are as follows.

Plaintiff 1, on January 201, 201, Plaintiff 24 U.S. dollars 20,000 in the gylle Card No. 10,500,000, customs clearance fees of Plaintiff 1, Defendant 2, E, and F on June 13, 2011, Plaintiff 20 U.S. dollars 70,00 U.S. dollars in the Socart X-gu 70, U.S. dollars, Defendant E, and G ( India) on October 25, 2011, 30 U.S. dollars 20,000 in the 30,000 Lone Starma 303, Inc. 303, Oct. 25, 201, Plaintiff 4, Defendant E, and Defendant 1.

B. On August 21, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement in the Daegu District Court Decision 2014Da2551, 4298 (Joint) and 6380 (Joint) related to the instant trade agreement, etc., and was accordingly sentenced to two years of imprisonment.