Text
1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 731,515,910 and KRW 393,695,048 among them, the Defendant shall start on December 31, 2012, and among them, 207,820.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The purpose of the Plaintiff is to contribute to the promotion of social welfare by providing technical education to the needy and his/her children and cultivating self-support ability by awarding scholarships and improving their social status. It is a social welfare foundation that conducts business such as the operation of a profit-making business entity for this purpose. The Defendant, since its establishment on February 19, 1973, has served as the representative director of the Plaintiff until he/she resigned on January 31, 2013 due to the embezzlement described in the following sub-paragraph (c).
B. As a part of profit-making business, the Plaintiff was supplied to panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty panty pan
C. When the Plaintiff is supplied with panty panty panty panty panty panty panty, the Plaintiff ordinarily received an additional supply of approximately 2% of the total contract quantity, taking into account the inferior ratio of the raw source that occurred on an average, and the said additional part was not issued a tax invoice without paying any additional amount to C.
As the technical capabilities of the plaintiff and the original body remaining after the work of the panty foundation was developed as above (hereinafter "technical income portion"), the plaintiff ordered the original body with approximately 2-3% of the original unit required for the panty quantity to be supplied to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration in consideration of the original body of technical income portion, after which the plaintiff ordered the original body with approximately 2-3% less than the original unit required for the panty quantity to be supplied to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (in case the original unit required for 100 days, 98 only orders).
As above, although the Technical Income Division was not purchased by the Plaintiff after paying its partial payment to C, the Defendant is actually about the Technical Income Division from C for the purpose of embezzlement of the Plaintiff’s funds at the end of 2009.