1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose main business is the operation of construction equipment, such as others, and the lease of machinery and equipment, etc., and the Defendant served in the Plaintiff from October 1, 200 to April 30, 2012.

B. From April 1, 2006 to November 30, 2013, C served as an employee in charge of the Plaintiff’s accounting. On November 23, 2006, C opened one bank account (Account Number D) under the Plaintiff’s name and used it to embezzled KRW 726,419,392 in total by receiving insurance money, insurance refund, etc. paid to the Plaintiff from November 30, 2006 to December 23, 2013 (hereinafter “instant embezzlement”).

C. C was prosecuted in the Seoul Northern District Court due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (2017 Gohap195), and the said court sentenced C to four years of imprisonment on August 25, 2017.

C appealed against the above judgment, and the Seoul High Court (2017No2763) (the appellate court) reversed the original judgment and sentenced C to two years and six months of imprisonment on the grounds that C agreed with the Plaintiff as the victim and the Plaintiff expressed his intention not to be punished.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 13 and 14 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C entered the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s introduction, and the documents in the name of the Plaintiff were forged within seven months during which he/she entered the Plaintiff and began to stop the instant embezzlement by opening the Plaintiff’s future account.

C It is difficult to deem that the instant embezzlement act was solely committed by C, and in light of the relationship between C and the Defendant, and the relationship between C and C, KRW 3.5 million out of KRW 12.5 million remitted to E on July 11, 2011, and the fact that the Defendant acquired part of the embezzlement, etc., the Defendant should be deemed to have committed the instant embezzlement in collusion with C, or aiding and abetting C’s embezzlement.

Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff.