beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of each entry in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) and the entire purport of the pleadings:
The defendant entered into an insurance contract guaranteeing the damage suffered by the plaintiff's illegal act in employing the plaintiff in Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and the above company.
B. While working as an insurance solicitor of Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., on June 14, 2005, the Plaintiff embezzled KRW 3,380,000 for insurance premiums received from B on December 29, 2005, and embezzled KRW 30,000,000 for insurance premiums received from C on December 29, 2005, and returned only KRW 10,000 to C on September 8, 2006.
C. Accordingly, on November 2, 2006, the life insurance company for the Plaintiff’s employer acquired the claim for reimbursement of KRW 23,380,000 against the Plaintiff by paying KRW 3,380,000 to B and KRW 20,000 to C, and on November 8, 2006, the Plaintiff terminated the insurance contract with the Plaintiff and offset the cancellation refund of KRW 5,612,404 against the above claim for reimbursement. Under the above life insurance contract for fidelity guarantee, the Defendant claimed payment of KRW 17,767,596 (=23,380,000 - 5,612,404) against the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, on February 1, 2007, the Defendant paid the remaining amount of KRW 17,767,596 to Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on the basis of the aforementioned fidelity Guarantee Insurance Contract, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of the said amount under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009 Ghana2356561, and on September 29, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court decided that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 17,767,596 and its amount of KRW 5% per annum from February 2, 2007 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in the above case, and the said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on October 16, 209.”
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on performance recommendation”). E.
The plaintiff.