손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 7, and the whole purport of the arguments.
Plaintiff
(1) Around July 2012, Defendant, C, and D had discussed the business issues of establishing and operating the Plaintiff Company, which is engaged in manufacturing and selling cosmetics and food, and D had been omitted from the discussion of the above business proposals around August 2012.
(2) On September 2012, C and the Defendant agreed to establish the Plaintiff Company by investing KRW 20,000,000, respectively, and promote the manufacture and sale business of cosmetics and food by the same method. However, at the early stage of the operation of the business, the Defendant agreed to accept the enemy and to distribute profits to the Plaintiff at the investment ratio of KRW 1:1 if future profits occur.
(3) On September 19, 2012, the registration of incorporation for the Plaintiff Company was completed, and C and the Defendant respectively received 40,000 shares per share with a face value of 500 won.
C is an internal director, and the defendant was registered as a representative director.
B. (1) The Defendant entered E as an internal director of the Plaintiff Company, such as the withdrawal of the Plaintiff Company’s funds.
(2) The Defendant withdrawn funds from one bank F and other banks G as listed in the following table from the Plaintiff Company’s corporate bank account F and used them at its own discretion.
(hereinafter referred to as “the act of withdrawal and use of the funds of this case”). E E E/B
C. After the process of a criminal case against the defendant, C filed a complaint with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office for the crime of occupational breach of trust and occupational embezzlement due to the act of withdrawing and using the funds of this case.
(2) On October 25, 2013, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office requested the Defendant to issue a summary order of KRW 3,000,000 for the crime of occupational breach of trust and issued a disposition that is irrelevant to suspicion of occupational embezzlement.
(3) The defendant is jointly incorporated by D, C, and the defendant in the course of investigation into the above accusation case.