(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.30 2015가합559108

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.30 2015가합559108

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim was based on the Plaintiff’s three branch managers, and Defendant B’s employees of the above branch offices.

The Defendants conspired, and (1) Defendant A embezzled total of KRW 150,364,00 on 37 occasions from January 17, 2014 to May 31, 2015, including withdrawing the sales proceeds of credit clothes kept in the account transferred to the account in the name of the principal and using them for personal purposes, and (2) Defendant B embezzled the amount of KRW 85,528,40 from May 17, 2013 to December 20, 2014 in the same manner.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the above amount to the Plaintiff as compensation for joint tort.

2. Determination

A. According to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4-2, 5-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the following facts are recognized:

1) The Plaintiff filed a criminal charge of occupational embezzlement with the same content as before filing the instant lawsuit on June 2015. As a result of the investigation, the Plaintiff filed a criminal charge of occupational embezzlement against Defendant A on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the act of embezzlement or irrelevant to the Plaintiff, and Defendant A was subject to a disposition by the prosecution on January 8, 2016 on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the act of embezzlement of KRW 20,90,000 (Seoul Central District Court 2016Da521). Defendant A was acquitted on November 30, 2016 (Seoul Central District Court 2016No5458) on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the act of embezzlement as to the suspected criminal charge of embezzlement of KRW 20,90,00,000, which was prosecuted by the prosecutor (the prosecutor appealed

[2] Defendant B was subject to a disposition by the prosecution on May 16, 2016 on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the act of embezzlement against the entire amount of the Plaintiff’s embezzlement.

B. As above, since the Defendants’ embezzlement was not recognized in the relevant criminal case, the Defendants received a disposition of non-prosecution or a judgment of not guilty, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendants committed embezzlement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is groundless.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.12.03 2014가단33247

-부산고등법원 2019.09.26 2018나59055

-대구지방법원영덕지원 2016.04.05 2015가단1463

-전주지방법원군산지원 2019.09.25 2017가합11201

-인천지방법원 2019.04.16 2018나56056