Representative of the partnership

Law Firm Samyang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

2. B1 (74 Years, South Korea)

3. B2 (Year 52, South Korea)

4. B3 (Net 64 Years, South Korea)

5. B47 years old, South Korea)

6. B5 (Year 49, South Korea)

7. B6 (Year 41, South Korea)

Defendant 3, 5, and 7’s Cheong Law Firm

[Defendant-Appellee]

Defendant 4 and 6 Attorney Han-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Unclaimedd Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1 and 2)

(a) Defendant B: 10,000,000,000;

B. Defendant B1 is jointly and severally and severally with Defendant B, KRW 8,466,571,848, out of the money in paragraph (a) of this Article. Defendant B and B1 are jointly and severally liable to pay the money in paragraph (a) of this Article.

(1) Defendant B2 is KRW 1,170,356,508;

(2) Defendant B3 is KRW 1,352,835,557;

(3) Defendant B4 was 647,734,160 won;

(4) Defendant B5 is KRW 175,896,800,

(5) Defendant B6 is 118,782,464 won

As to each of the above, Defendant B shall pay 20% interest per annum from August 25, 2009, Defendant B1 shall pay 20% interest per annum from July 28, 2009 to the date of full payment, Defendant B2, B3, B4, B5, and B6 shall be 5% interest per annum from July 24, 2009 to September 24, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant B2, B3, B4, B5, B6: Defendant B, and B1, jointly and severally with Defendant B, and jointly with Defendant B, KRW 2,181,09,647, and KRW 1,843,225,041; KRW 1,116,975,691; KRW 1,207,347,208; KRW 459,709,368; and KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery to the day of full payment.

A. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants

(1) 피고 B, B1은 원고 소속 중도매인으로 냉동창고업을 운영하였고, 피고 B2는 ◇수산업협동조합, 피고 B3은 ◆수산업협동조합, 피고 B4는 □수산업협동조합, 피고 B5는 수산업협동조합, 피고 B6은 △수산업협동조합의 각 중도매인들이다.

(2) On September 21, 2005, when the Plaintiff paid 20% or more of the proceeds of the fishery products that Defendant B intended to purchase to the Plaintiff with purchase deposit, the Plaintiff purchased and stored the fishery products with its own funds, and entered into a fishery products delivery contract with the Plaintiff within a certain period from the date of purchase to pay a certain rate of sales commission and interest to the Plaintiff, and with the purchase of the fishery products. ② A fishery products sales contract with the purchase of the fishery products purchased around June 2006 to the Defendant’s freezing warehouse, respectively, with the same content as Defendant B1. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19070, Sep. 12, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 20580, Oct. 10, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 18747, Sep. 21, 2005

B. The defendants' fraud and embezzlement

(1) Defendant B, B1, B2 obtained KRW 2,50 from around September 20, 205 to December 28, 2006, from around 20.20 to around 20.20, Defendant B2 issued a false invoice to the Plaintiff as if he did not purchase or purchased less than KRW 2,51,986,376 in total from around 205 to around 20.30, and from around 206 to December 18, 206, Defendant B and B1 were to purchase KRW 2,51,986 (Attached Table 1), B, and B3 were to purchase KRW 30,50 by means of the same false invoice (attached Table 1), and from around 30, 205 to 30,000 won by means of the same method (attached Table 2,084,934,97,295) by means of the same method, from around 18, 2006 to

(2) 피고 B은 원고와의 수산물매취계약을 통하여 수매한 수산물에 대한 물품보관 계약을 체결하여 원고 소유의 수산물을 보관하여 오던 중 2007. 2. 하순경부터 2007. 8.경까지 사이에 ▲냉동사업사 및 주식회사 ☆의 냉동창고(이하 이 사건 냉동창고)에서 보관 중인 원고 소유의 매취판매수산물 6,904,877,872원 상당을 원고의 출고지시 없이 반출·판매하여 횡령하였다.

(3) The Defendants were indicted for the above fraud and embezzlement crime, and all of the appeals court on February 19, 2008 and July 16, 2008 became final and conclusive upon conviction.

C. After partial recovery, the Plaintiff collected total of KRW 3,266,671,220, and KRW 150,070,409, and KRW 30,464,609, and KRW 261,94,04, and KRW 2610,940,00, and KRW 200,00,000 from Defendant B2, and KRW 30,000,00 from Defendant B4, and KRW 200,00 from Defendant B5, and KRW 20,000,00 from Defendant B5, as criminal agreement.

[Based on the recognition] Defendant B and B1: deemed confessions; other Defendants do not dispute; Gap evidence 1; Gap evidence 2 to 22; Gap evidence 3 through 9 (including each number); Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 1 to 2 (including each number); the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B and B1

According to the above facts, Defendant B and B1 are the remainder of 1,924,243,488 won (2,51,986,376 won) calculated by deducting the amount the Plaintiff would have deducted from the amount of damages caused by the above fraud, embezzlement, etc. 2. 3. 1. 2. 1. 2 . 2 . 2 . 3 . 2 . . 2 . 3 . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 3 . . 2 . . . 2 . . 2 . . . 3 . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . 1,263,19,300 . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . 8 . 2 . . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . .. . ................ ............................. . .... . .... . ... .. . ............. ............ .......................... .................................... ............................................................................................... .........

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B2, B3, B4, B5, and B6

(a) Liability for damages;

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant B2, B3, B4, B5, and B6 are each joint tortfeasor, and they are jointly and severally liable with the defendant B and B1 to compensate for the plaintiff's damage caused by the above fraud.

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) The amount of damage caused by the above fraud crime

① Defendant B2: 2,511,986,376 won

② Defendant B3: 2,084,934,347 won

③ Defendant B4: 1,263,119,300 won

④ Defendant B5: 911.125.000 won

⑤ Defendant B6: 506,259,880 won

(2) Credit.

(A) In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 8-1-1, the Defendants received KRW 35,525,668,130 from the Plaintiff to February 28, 2007, totaling KRW 35,525,668,130 from September 22, 2005 to February 3, 2006, it can be recognized that the amount of KRW 13,664,736,910 from September 22, 2005 to February 3, 2006 was completed by Defendant B and B1, and thus, the amount corresponding to the above period of damage of the Plaintiff should be deducted from the amount of damages as set forth below.

① Defendant B2: 924,040,740 won (attached Form 1 to 14) ② Defendant B3:31,389,90 won (attached Form 2: 1 through 4) plus Defendant B4:35,90 won (attached Form 2: 415,951,60 won (attached Form 3) plus the sum of Defendant B5: 66,254,00 won (attached Form 41 through 11) and (5) Defendant B6: 357,781,80 won (attached Form 51 through 7).

(B) In the event that the Plaintiff purchased fishery products from the Defendants, the fact that at least 20% of the purchase deposit was paid as the purchase deposit is not disputed between the parties, and thus, it can be deemed that the amount equivalent to at least 20% of the Plaintiff’s damage was appropriated from the purchase deposit. Therefore, it should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s damage amount.

(C) Amount received as a criminal agreement;

① Defendant B2:10 million won. ② Defendant B3: 50 million won.

③ Defendant B4: 30 million won

4. Defendant B5: 20 million won

(3)Calculations (if less than 3)

① Defendant B2: 1,170,356,508 = (2,51,986,376-924,040,740 won) ¡¿0.8-100,000,000 won

② Defendant B3: 1,352,835,557 = (2,084,934,347-31,389,900 won) ¡¿0.8-50,000,000 won

③ Defendant B4: 647,734,160 won = (1,263,119,300 won-415,951,600 won) ¡¿0.8-30,000,000 won

(4) Defendant B5: 175,896,80 won = (1,125,00 won-66,254,00 won) ¡¿0.8-20,000,000 won

⑤ Defendant B6: 118,782,464 = (506,259,880 won--357,781,800 won) ¡¿0.8C. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

(1) Claim for deduction of sales proceeds of inventory fishery products

Although there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff sold the fishery products under custody in the warehouse of this case and recovered KRW 5,023,531,384, the Plaintiff’s damages recognized as above do not relate to the fishery products in which the Defendants did not sell the fishery products, or the amount equivalent to the sales proceeds of the portion in fact exaggerated is added to the sales proceeds of the portion in fact, and remains in a normal transaction and inventory, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the sales proceeds of the fishery products should be deducted from the above amount of damages is without merit.

(2) Claim for reimbursement of the pledged deposit or the purchase price of a motor vehicle

As seen above, Defendant B1’s deposit 150,070,409 and the proceeds of automobile sales 30,464,603 won, which the Plaintiff established a pledge after the crime of fraud and embezzlement. However, in light of the purport of the quasi-joint and several liability system in which the Plaintiff and Defendant B1 intend to secure the full amount of the above Defendants, the aforementioned recovery amount should not be jointly and severally liable with the above Defendants, but be appropriated for the portion of the solely liable amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da67376, Mar. 14, 200). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the aforementioned recovery amount should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s damages is without merit.

(3) Claim for offsetting negligence

The above defendants asserted that if the plaintiff paid early attention to the plaintiff or processed the work in accordance with basic procedures such as collecting accurate documents, the damage as seen above would not have occurred, and if the plaintiff investigated fishery products brought in the freezing warehouse prior to the payment of funds, the crime of the defendant Eul could have been easily discovered. However, since it was possible to commit the crime of this case because it did not confirm on-site once more than two years, the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the damage of this case and the calculation of damages of this case should be taken into account. However, as in this case, the defendant who intentionally committed a tort by using the victim's care cannot assert the comparative negligence on the ground of the victim's negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32197, Oct. 7, 2005). The above defendants' assertion of comparative negligence is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant B2 jointly and severally with Defendant B and B1, Defendant B2, Defendant B3, Defendant B3, Defendant B4, Defendant B4, Defendant B57, and Defendant B57, Defendant B57, Defendant B5, and Defendant B5, Defendant B5, Defendant B6, and Defendant B6, as claimed by the Plaintiff, are liable to pay damages at a rate of 175,896,80 won, Defendant B6, and 118,782,464 won as of July 22, 2009, which is obvious from July 24, 2009 to September 24, 2009, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the above Defendants’ obligation to pay damages at a rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act until September 24, 2009, and 20% per annum as to the promotion of litigation from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant B and B1 are accepted in its reasoning, and the remaining claims against the defendants are accepted in part within the scope recognized above, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

Judges Kim Jae-han

Judges Han-hane