1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) KRW 3,812,583 as well as the full payment from May 3, 2016.

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. On August 31, 2014, while serving in the Plaintiff Company, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was deprived of the Plaintiff Company. From time to time to time until October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff Company and suffered damages equivalent to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 32,360,000, which was the sum of KRW 32,360,000 owned by the Plaintiff, including two washing machines, compcomcururcers, crying machines, table money, office books, and 4 years old (hereinafter referred to as “the instant theft articles”).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the money stated in the main claim.

B. We examine the judgment, even if all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff were to be considered, it is insufficient for the Defendant to recognize the theft of the instant case owned by the Plaintiff.

In this regard, according to the evidence evidence No. 8 and evidence No. 18-1, the Defendant appears to have stolen the washing machine No. 5 million won at the market price of one of the theft objects of this case within the Plaintiff Company. However, inasmuch as it is insufficient to recognize that the victim was the Plaintiff Company even if the other evidence of the Plaintiff’s submission are integrated, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant committed a tort against the Plaintiff Company.

In addition, even if the instant theft objects are owned by the Plaintiff, and even if the Defendant stolen all the aforementioned theft objects, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff cannot be readily concluded that the value of the said theft object constitutes the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, thereby incurring loss equivalent to that of the said amount.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review as to the remaining points.

2. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. There is no dispute between the parties to a judgment as to the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including additional numbers), the defendant shall show an aggregate of KRW 3,812,583 to the plaintiff between March 1, 2015 and March 28, 2015.