beta
Text
1. The defendant B is dismissed from office as director of defendant C Co., Ltd.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was established on May 17, 201 for the purpose of running the main manufacturing business, etc., and only 10,000 shares issued are owned by the original Defendant, respectively.
From May 17, 2011 to May 17, 2014, Defendant B served as Defendant C’s representative director and in-house director, and served as an inside director from October 8, 2014. The Plaintiff is serving as Defendant C’s representative director and in-house director from October 8, 2014.
B. From February 20, 2013 to March 21, 2014, Defendant B embezzled KRW 48,330,280 by means of falsely preparing personnel documents and attendance records as if he/she had worked as an employee even if he/she had not worked as an employee in Defendant C, and then paying wages to D deposit account on the basis thereof. From February 20, 2014, Defendant B embezzled KRW 4,66,100 by means of paying retirement allowances to D.
Defendant B was indicted on the charge of occupational embezzlement of KRW 48,330,280 in the name of D’s salary under the pretext of corporate embezzlement by the Seogu District Court Branch Decision 2014Ra1312. On December 23, 2014, the court affirmed Defendant B’s guilty on December 23, 2014 and sentenced Defendant B to eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution.
Although Defendant B appealed against this and filed an appeal with Daegu District Court 2015No212, the court rendered a judgment dismissing Defendant B’s appeal on November 26, 2015, the case continues to be under Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1980 as of November 26, 2015.
C. On February 23, 2015, Defendant C held a temporary general meeting of shareholders on the agenda of the dismissal of the inside director of Defendant B. The Plaintiff explained the grounds for dismissal of the inside director of Defendant B as the chairperson, and sought further decision, but the dismissal agenda was rejected against Defendant B, which owned 50% of the shares of Defendant C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and the court's significant facts, and the purport of the whole pleadings.