손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit;
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Defendant embezzled KRW 140,237,442 of the company’s money while performing an act related to accounting in C operated by the Plaintiff; (b) arbitrarily terminated the Plaintiff’s siren contract; and (c) thereby, incurred losses of KRW 7,851,90 of the penalty for early termination; and (d) the Defendant shall pay KRW 148,089,342, which is the sum of the amount added,
1) From September 2012 to August 2015, the Defendant embezzled 127,443,00 won into the Plaintiff’s bank account opened for the operation of C, and then withdrawn KRW 267,680,442 from around September 201 to August 2015 or transferred to the Defendant’s bank account, and thus, embezzled 140,237,442 won (the difference) corporate interest of KRW 140,237,442 (the Defendant embezzled 2). The Defendant of the earlier termination penalty was not less than 48 months (the initial contract term) that the Plaintiff entered into in the name of C, but not more than 1 year and 2 months (a year and 2 months), thereby incurring damages to the Plaintiff.
B. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment 1 company’s embezzlement part, the Defendant deposited money exceeding KRW 100 million in the national bank D account, from September 2012 to August 2015, 201, to the national bank account, the Defendant deposited more than KRW 100 million, withdrawn more money from the said account, or deposited into the Defendant’s bank account.
However, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed that the Defendant embezzled all the money equivalent to the difference.
Considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s business account and the Defendant’s bank account were made with the Plaintiff’s consent, and that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant acquired the difference individually.
In other words, the plaintiff and the defendant live together with the defendant by borrowing C, which is a business entity that makes TV advertisements between pro-friendly districts.