손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) Defendant B, the head of the business team of the Plaintiff Company, and Defendant C, the head of the assembly production team of the Plaintiff Company. (b) The Defendants, in collusion with the Defendants around February 2012, stolen one “A60F mobile device” owned by the Plaintiff Company’s office (hereinafter “instant machine”) and sold it to D, a dentist around that time.
3) On April 17, 2014, the Defendants were sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution with respect to the theft, etc. of the instant machinery under the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2014Kadan264, Incheon District Court Decision 2014, each of which was sentenced to 6 months and 2 years of suspended execution.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the market price of the instant machinery and the damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The average height price of the instant machinery claimed by the Defendants is KRW 22 million, and the instant machinery cannot be sold only because it is a part of the equipment without obtaining permission from the food and pharmaceutical plant. The Defendants returned the instant machinery to E to the former representative director of the Plaintiff Company. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed.
B. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Eul is the representative director of the plaintiff company, and Eul has resigned on October 23, 2012 and became the representative director of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company reported the closure of business to the head of Suwon District Tax Office on October 26, 2012. The defendants tried to take measures such as returning the machinery of this case to F who is the representative of the plaintiff company while being investigated as suspicion of theft of the machinery of this case. However, F refused contact with the defendants, and on September 2013, E is working for the former representative director of the plaintiff company.