beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.07.03 2015가단13233

채무부존재확인

Text

1. Of the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2001Gahap66000 decided March 10, 2005, the Plaintiff’s “81,328.”

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The defendant is a company that aims at the free sale of motor vehicles, and the management crisis was faced by the so-called IMF situation around the end of 1997.

The plaintiff was the defendant's employee who is in charge of the sale and collection of glass products.

The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Eastern District Court 2001Gahap66000.

In the above case, the defendant asserts that "the plaintiff collected the defendant's claim while working as the defendant's employee, and embezzled 59,812,730 won at will during his/her occupational storage, and as well as other employees, he/she embezzled 351,210,509 won of the defendant's inventory assets at will during his/her occupational storage, and embezzled 41,023,239 won of the above tort (i.e., single embezzlement 59,812,730 won of joint embezzlement 351,210,509 won)." The defendant claimed compensation for damages based on the above tort (i.e., single embezzlement 59,812,730 won), and (ii) as the conjunctive claim, the defendant agreed to pay the amount of KRW 90,000,000 of the above agreed amount."

On March 10, 2005, the above court: (a) if the Defendant deducts the Defendant’s lawful expenses from the amount that the Defendant had not paid to the Plaintiff after omitting or collecting the collection report; (b) the amount that the Defendant embezzled by arbitrarily consuming it during the course of its business (i.e., KRW 8,671,50,000, KRW 860,000, KRW 860,000 - KRW 8,443,200 - KRW 2,96,000 - KRW 1,00,000 - KRW 2,96,000,000 - KRW 1,000,000 upon the primary claim, the above amount of KRW 8,671,50, and damages for delay from March 11, 201 to March 11, 2005 to 20% per annum.

② In the case of a preliminary claim, where part of the primary claim is accepted, the intent of the claim is recognized only for the portion for which the primary claim is rejected. The Defendant shall divide the Plaintiff on February 28, 200 into three parts, and the Defendant shall divide into three parts, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16583, Oct. 10, 200