1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the vice president of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) who is engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of clothes, and was retired from office after overall control over the production business.

B. At the time when the Plaintiff was in office in the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company purchased the prime contractor from the UNFCCC, Inc., Ltd., a prime supplier, (hereinafter “Nex”) and requested the crypt D, and then supplied the prime contractor whose crypt was completed, the Defendant Company paid the prime contractor price on the cypt date.

C. At around July 2009, D’s representative C completed most of the 20 raw materials supplied to the Defendant Company after the Defendant Company purchased and requested to purchase from the Ntex Tech, but approximately approximately 661kg (hereinafter “instant raw materials”) was not biased on the ground of defects, and is currently kept.

After the Plaintiff retired from the Defendant Company, the instant prime contractor purchased by settling the accounts on the Tech, which was kept in D, without returning or arranging it in D, and upon request from the Defendant Company to the effect that it would be able to exercise the right by receiving a payment order against C in the name of the Defendant Company. On August 2010, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order seeking payment order against C, in the name of the Defendant Company, 5,320,162, which is the sum of the principal contractor’s price, and the amount paid in excess on the Tech due to the original contractor of this case, and the delay damages therefrom at the time of applying for payment order.

E. Accordingly, the order for payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”) issued on December 21, 2010 by the District Court of Suyang Branch 2010 tea 4895 (hereinafter “the instant payment order”) was served on C on December 30, 2010 and became final and conclusive January 14, 2011.

F. Meanwhile, around August 2012, the Plaintiff produced a letter of intent with the Defendant Company to lend money from the Defendant Company and supplied it to another company.