beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company operating a large retailer, and the Defendant is a person operating a welfare foundation B.
B. On July 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) called the Plaintiff Company to purchase gift certificates of KRW 20 million in face value to D, a C Team employee; and (b) deposited KRW 18.5% in the Plaintiff Company’s account designated by D, which applied the discount rate of KRW 5.5% in face value.
Accordingly, on July 7, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 18.9 million in the company’s account around 10:14, the following day, but revoked deposit at around 10:15, and deposited KRW 16.9 million again at around 10:16 and KRW 18.9 million in total. At around 11:38, the Defendant received D from the Plaintiff Company at around 11:38.
C. Meanwhile, prior to the issuance of the above merchandise coupon to the Defendant, D heard the statement that the Defendant deposited KRW 18.9 million from the Plaintiff E Team staff F of the Plaintiff Company in three times each time, and issued a merchandise coupon of KRW 60 million at the E Team.
Then, according to the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant was indicted for the facts charged that "the defendant acquired gift certificates of KRW 20 million in face value and paid only KRW 18.9 million in face value, and acquired gift certificates of KRW 40 million in face value and KRW 40 million in face value," and the court of first instance (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da4446 decided October 6, 2016) was convicted, but the appellate court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No4064 decided November 23, 2017) declared that "the defendant's partial statement was inconsistent with the facts charged, but there was no objective evidence consistent with the facts charged, and D's arbitrary preparation of gift certificates of KRW 60,000 in face value and received KRW 40,00 in face value and KRW 30,000 in face value, and the above judgment of the Supreme Court was dismissed for 2015Da17181 decided decided decided."
【Partial grounds for recognition】 There is no dispute, A.