손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant F is modified as follows.
Defendant F shall be Defendant G, the first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is the same as the part against the defendants among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or deletion as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The 9th through 14th of the first instance judgment [the part concerning the embezzlement of government contributions paid to Defendant E” among the “Embezzlement of Government contributions and false settlement of accounts”] was made as follows. (2) Upon examining the request for disposition of the result of embezzlement of government contributions paid to Defendant E (Evidence No. 5), Defendant F made it possible for Defendant F to pay KRW 40 million out of the government contributions paid to Defendant E to S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) for the purpose of performing “U”, and embezzled the said money without providing services for research expenses (hereinafter “instant 2 embezzlement”) with the following purport: (a) from 18th to 17th of the first instance judgment [3.2] to 18th of the 17th of the 17th judgment with respect to the claim for damages related to the embezzlement of this case’s embezzlement; and (b) in collusion, Defendant F made a decision with respect to Defendant F’s claim for damages related to the embezzlement of this case’s embezzlement.
“(1) The statement in Gap evidence No. 5 (written request for disposition as a result of audit) regarding the claim against defendant F is insufficient to recognize that the defendant F committed the act of embezzlement of this case or committed any unlawful act related thereto, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (in spite of the fact inquiry at the trial, the Board of Audit and Inspection did not submit any reply or data relating to the embezzlement of this case). Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant F with respect to the defendant F is groundless. The defendant F deleted "38,709,564 won."
The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the 22th to 23th 6th am [3.b.3] of the judgment regarding the Defendant G’s assertion of deposit shall be followed as follows:
“3. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of deposit.”