beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,154,75,150; (b) KRW 11,98,576,896; (c) Plaintiff E; and (d) KRW 3,596,209,604; and (c) Plaintiff C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s trade relation between Plaintiff I and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor 1) served as the vice head of the Defendant’s headquarters from February 2001 to January 16, 2008. The Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s M& branch (hereinafter “instant branch”) from January 17, 208 to March 19, 201, by attracting deposits from the capable customers through new deposits, specified money trusts, and investment in collective investment securities.
(2) Plaintiff I is the representative director of P Co., Ltd. operating a P Co., Ltd. located in Heung-gu N, Young-si, and Plaintiff A is Plaintiff I’s wife, Plaintiff C, E, and G, and Plaintiff I’s children.
Plaintiff
I visited Q points of the Defendant around the second half of 2005 and introduced the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor and deposited transactions with the Defendant through the Defendant’s Intervenor.
3) On June 28, 2006, the Intervenor’s Intervenor received KRW 8,053,047,419 from Plaintiff I to the savings account (Account Number R) in the name of Plaintiff C, and around that time, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s money deposited KRW 8,053,047,419 as well as the savings deposit, store deposit (MD), and fund management specified money deposit (MT) account (MT) account that may receive occasional payments (hereinafter “instant new account”) between the time and February 16, 2010.
(B) The Defendant’s Intervenor’s criminal judgment 1) was charged with embezzlement without the consent of the customers through the process of transferring and re-transfer the money deposited from the Defendant’s customers, including the Plaintiffs, through several accounts. However, the first instance court of the foregoing case (Seoul Eastern District Court 2010Gohap425) was submitted by the Prosecutor on February 23, 2012, and the Defendant’s Defendant’s criminal judgment 1 was solely based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor and without the consent of the customers.