손해배상(기)
The plaintiff's appeal, the conjunctive claim added by this court, and the defendant's incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.
(b) Costs of lawsuit;
The court's explanation of this case is identical to the remaining statement on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added as follows, and thus, it is also acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The evidence No. 30 shall be added to the second part of the judgment of the first instance [based grounds for recognition].
In the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the third-party 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is therefore the defendant's "Therefore, the defendant shall be the defendant."
Of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, the following details shall be added between the third and 10.
"4) Preliminary Defendant is obligated to return 27,495,809 won for remaining public funds received from Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 335,495,809), Defendant’s salary of KRW 108,000,000 for unjust enrichment to Plaintiff.
Of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, the details of the third-party 1 to 16 are as follows.
“Chocks, A. 11 through 14, 31 through 46, if any, the number shall be included; hereinafter the same shall apply.
In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant committed an act in violation of C’s duties as a public fund embezzlement or C’s on-site director, or caused damage to the Plaintiff due to a breach of the duty of care under employment contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s primary argument is not acceptable.
In addition, the defendant gains a benefit equivalent to KRW 227,495,809 without any legal ground, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount. Therefore, the plaintiff's preliminary assertion is rejected.
“The Defendant’s occupational embezzlement or breach of trust” in the first instance judgment from No. 3 to No. 20.