beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 84,613,160 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 1, 2014 to March 3, 2015.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff is a person operating a “D cafeteria” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant is a manager who manages the overall business, sales, etc. from January 2013 to May 2014 at the above cafeteria.
Around January 2013, the Defendant retired KRW 5,960,690 while he/she was in the custody of the said restaurant in the course of performing his/her duties, and embezzled KRW 84,613,160 by arbitrarily consuming KRW 84,613,160 from around that time to April 2014, as stated in the attached embezzlement list.
The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on October 30, 2014 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 Godan5940 Decided October 30, 2014 and the sentence became final and conclusive as it is.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the above tort, namely, the amount of KRW 84,613,160, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 1, 2014 to March 3, 2015, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, which is the delivery date of the payment order, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
As to this, the defendant asserts that there was no embezzlement, such as the content of the embezzlement list, during the period from January 2013 to April 2013.
Unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment of a criminal case in light of other evidence submitted in a civil trial, it shall not be dismissed unless it is acknowledged that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment of a criminal case in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, and it shall not be subject to the detention of the facts found in the civil trial, and it shall be subject to the Supreme Court Decision 8Meu16270 delivered on September 12, 198.