1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of taxi passenger transportation business.

B. The Defendants are married couple.

From March 31, 2001 to October 17, 2012, Defendant C served as the representative director of the Plaintiff, and Defendant B served as the Plaintiff’s director from March 31, 2001 to March 31, 201.

C. The representative director D is the defendant B's sentence.

D as a major shareholder of the Plaintiff, the Defendants have been actually involved in the Plaintiff’s management while serving as the representative director and director.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant C, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s assertion, had Defendant B and his wife G, who did not actually work for the Plaintiff from 2007 to 2011, use two mobile phoness in the name of the Plaintiff as a director, and embezzled KRW 8,379,020 in total by paying the Plaintiff’s operating funds. The Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,60,730 as part of the damages incurred from the said tort, and the damages for delay thereof. 2) Even if the Defendants alleged that they used the mobile phone in the name of the Plaintiff, they were used as the representative director or director, and the Plaintiff paid part of the said amount. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

B. In light of the above-mentioned position of the Defendants, the relation between D and Defendants, and the Plaintiff’s operational status, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants committed a tort of embezzlement of the amount equivalent to the mobile phone usage price as alleged by the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, on the sole basis of the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's request for the conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is with merit.