logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.06.21 2018가단71812
부당이득금
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 that runs the business of manufacturing and selling panels for studio studio, and the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s internal director on March 30, 2012, and the same year.

8. 24. A registration was made on February 18, 2013, each of which was registered as office of the Plaintiff’s representative director, and was registered as the resignation of each of the two.

B. On June 20, 2007, the defendant, in collusion with the director C, embezzled the money of KRW 143 million in total on six occasions with the borrowed name account kept by the defendant for the plaintiff, and found him guilty (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2010Ma612, Sept. 27, 2006) for the crime of embezzlement of KRW 1459,00 through 18 times from September 27, 2006, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

C. On April 6, 2011, the Plaintiff was subject to a provisional attachment order regarding D Apartment 119 Dong 503, which was owned by the Defendant, with the amount of KRW 143,00,000 equivalent to the embezzlement amount as the claim amount. However, on July 11, 2012, the Plaintiff released the provisional attachment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) donated KRW 143 million to the Defendant on May 8, 2012, and KRW 15.7 million on or around June 22, 2012; (b) the said donation was not approved by the board of directors as to the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff’s director; (c) the Plaintiff’s offering of credit to the Defendant, who was a listed company, as a director, was null and void in violation of each provision of Articles 398 and 542-9 of the Commercial Act; and (d) the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 143 million to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

B. The fact that E (F’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’

arrow