1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As to the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement, the Defendant asserted as follows: (a) although the Defendant was in the position of keeping the total transport earnings from many customers in custody pursuant to the wage agreement that implements the full-scale management system as a C taxi engineer belonging to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the same amount by arbitrarily consuming KRW 5,842,80, which is a part of them from November 15, 2012 to August 18, 2013, and embezzlement in the course of business; and (b) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was in the position of keeping the total transport earnings of the Plaintiff company; and (c) there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine.

(The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for embezzlement for occupational purposes, but on November 27, 2014, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff Company implemented the total management system, not the taxi commission scheme, and thus, was acquitted to the Defendant under this Court 2013No2911, which became final and conclusive on March 12, 2015). (B)

On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted interference with the Defendant’s business, as the head of the division of the Plaintiff company of the taxi branch of the Korea Trade Union D Union without collective bargaining right, the Defendant intruded the Plaintiff’s office that was scheduled to hold a disciplinary committee against the Defendant on the grounds of occupational embezzlement, absence from office without permission, etc. on or around August 19, 2013. On November 22, 2012, Nov. 30, 2012; on December 17, 2012; on five occasions, the Defendant invaded the Plaintiff’s company into the Plaintiff company’s office and interfered with the Plaintiff’s business without filing a report on assembly; and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 10 million,000,000,00, respectively.