손해배상(기)
Defendant B’s KRW 429,512,751 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 3, 2017 to September 30, 2019, and the following.
1. As to the claim against the defendant B
(a) the part as to Defendant B of the grounds for the attachment to the indication of the claim
B. Judgment by service by publication of the basis (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C, D, and E
A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is a stock company engaged in the export and import business and sales business of agricultural products, and Defendant B was an employee of the Plaintiff.
Defendant C filed a report of marriage with Defendant B on January 22, 2018, and the former spouse of Defendant B who completed a report of divorce on January 23, 2019, and Defendant D and E are parents of Defendant B.
2) Defendant B was indicted on suspicion of occupational embezzlement of the Plaintiff’s funds while serving as the Plaintiff’s management agent from May 1, 201 to May 10, 2017 (Seoul Eastern District Court 2018 order 2885 order), and the said court convicted Defendant B of all the criminal facts stated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant criminal facts”) on December 6, 201, and sentenced Defendant B to three years of imprisonment, which became final and conclusive.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. 1) As to the claim against Defendant C, Defendant C, as the cause of the claim, used the money acquired by Defendant B as a result of the instant crime to repay the loan, received the money deposited into the bank account of himself (Defendant C) or F (Defendant C) and made it easier for Defendant B to commit the instant crime, Defendant C, as a joint tort compensation, is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 429,512,751, which was acquired by Defendant B as a result of the instant crime, and the amount of delayed damages.
2) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence evidence Nos. 3-7, etc., was aiding and abetting Defendant C’s instant crime.
The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.
Rather, the purport of the whole pleadings is as follows: Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1 to No. 8.