손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant was a person who was in charge of the head of Kimpo-si in around 201, and the Plaintiffs are residents of H village in Kimpo-si.
B. The Defendant received as the name of the Village Development Fund the sum of KRW 100 million in total of KRW 30 million from the J (hereinafter “J”) (hereinafter “J”), February 1, 201, KRW 30,000,000,000 on June 20, 201, and KRW 40,000,000 on October 4, 201, the Defendant received KRW 30 million (= KRW 30,000,000) as the village development fund.
(hereinafter “instant KRW 100 million”). C.
The Defendant divided the instant KRW 100 million into KRW 4,545,00 to the 21 household in K Village, and used the remainder of KRW 4,55,00 (=10 million - (4,545,000 x 21 households) as the activity expenses of K Village.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-2 through 4, Eul evidence 4 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 100 million to the village development fund or damage compensation for the entire residents of Gri as the head of Gri, but did not pay it to the Plaintiffs, who are H village residents, and embezzled the said money by paying only to the residents of K village with friendship with the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 4.5 million won each of the damages for embezzlement and delay damages to the plaintiffs.
3. In light of the following circumstances, each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4-1, and 5-9 (including paper numbers) are not sufficient to acknowledge the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.
The details of the letter of consultation made between J and the Defendant on the KRW 100 million are as follows.
The consultation angle states that the KRW 100 million in this case is for K village, and the phrase “L” in the consultation angle appears to be the clerical error of “K”.
The defendant has a right to file a formal objection.