1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the information and communications technology and the manufacture and distribution of medical devices.

F served in the Plaintiff from July 2007 to November 201, 2016, and served as an internal director from around 2015, and from around 2015 to November 2016, F served as an internal director in-house director in G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) which is the Plaintiff’s subsidiary from around 2015 to November 2016.

B. (1) Two copies of cashier’s checks (H and I) issued on January 26, 2016 from G’s account (hereinafter “each of the instant checks”) (hereinafter “each of the instant checks”).

(2) Two cashier’s checks were deposited into the J company account under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant account”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1, 6-2; Gap evidence 2; Gap evidence 2; the result of the order issued by the court of first instance to submit financial transaction information to the Nbank; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff’s funds worth KRW 200 million deposited into the instant account under the name of the Defendant, and the said money was paid without any legal cause to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million, which was part of the KRW 200 million, to the Plaintiff, as unjust enrichment. The KRW 200 million deposited into the instant account was not used for the Plaintiff Company, and was used for the Defendant’s personal purpose unrelated to the Plaintiff Company after the transfer to another account under the name of the Defendant, and thus, the instant account was used for the Defendant’s personal purpose irrelevant to the Plaintiff Company. Thus, even if the Defendant merely lent the instant account to F, it constitutes the instant account that the Defendant was directly used by the Defendant, and is not a loan to the Plaintiff or F for the Defendant’s settlement transaction, the Defendant’s transfer of the Plaintiff’s funds deposited into the instant account to the Defendant’s other account without returning it to the Plaintiff, and the use thereof constitutes the embezzlement act. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff as part of KRW 500 million and its funds.