횡령금등
1. Defendant B’s KRW 674,391,750 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 8, 2011 to February 6, 2015.
1. The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since the Plaintiff’s filing of the lawsuit of this case was aimed at continuing the internal relationship with Defendant B by accepting executive titles against the Defendants, and did not proceed to the enforcement of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the filing of the lawsuit of this case was abused, and it constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order and thus constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order.
The statement No. 3 alone is not sufficient to admit the defendants' claims, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the defendants' defense is without merit.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The facts of recognition 1) Defendant B, while working as an accounting officer of “D” operated by the Plaintiff from January 2, 2007 to March 5, 201, Defendant B embezzled the Plaintiff’s goods with Nonparty E and sold them to the customer. When the Plaintiff became aware of the embezzlement of Defendant B, Defendant B acknowledged the amount of damage incurred therefrom on March 7, 201 as total KRW 70 million, and Defendant B prepared a letter of statement that the Plaintiff shall pay at least KRW 10 million each month to the Plaintiff. (2) On March 7, 2011, Defendant C, who is the words of Defendant B, is liable for the date the Plaintiff committed, and the amount of embezzlement would deposit KRW 30 million each month at the end of the guarantee contract (hereinafter “instant obligation”).
3) Meanwhile, from September 30, 201 to October 13, 2012, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 25,608,250 from Defendant B to repay the principal, and appropriated it for the principal. [The Plaintiff did not dispute over the grounds for recognition, as well as the entries in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 1, 2, and 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B and Defendant C, the guarantor, who was an illegal act against the Plaintiff, has no special circumstances.