beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap's testimony, Gap's evidence 1, 33, Eul's evidence 1 to 5, and Eul's testimony.
The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the wholesale business in which the subsidiary materials purchased from the Plaintiff are sold to a large-scale manufacturing company located in the Seoul DD market, and the Defendant served as an employee of the Plaintiff from January 3, 199 to July 15, 2016.
From around July 15, 2016, the Defendant had been in charge of the sales of secondary materials on bail, preparation of a statement of transactions, and collection of money while working as the head of the business office. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff dismissed the Defendant on the ground of embezzlement when the Plaintiff discovered the 14th class of secondary materials on bail on bail at the Defendant’s home.
Since then, the Plaintiff embezzled KRW 1,516,57,656 out of the amount of goods collected from customers by means of double preparing a transaction statement from January 2012 to June 2016 with respect to the Defendant at the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office, and embezzled KRW 14 of the attached materials for personal release on bail on July 15, 2016.
“The Prosecutor’s Office complained against the Defendant under suspicion. However, on February 1, 2017, the Prosecutor’s Office filed a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds that the Defendant was suspected of being guilty, and the Plaintiff’s representative E began to file a complaint on the charge of non-prosecution disposition. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Seoul High Prosecutor’s Office, but the appeal was dismissed on May 17, 2017, and the Plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication again with Seoul High Court 2017 Elementary and Secondary Court 2723, but the application for adjudication was dismissed on October 28, 2017. Meanwhile, the Prosecutor’s Office concluded the complaint on the ground that the Defendant was suspected of having filed a complaint on May 2, 2017 with the Plaintiff’s representative E, etc. around September 1, 2016, the Seoul Central Prosecutor’s Office borrowed money from Defendant 2017Mo4749, Jul. 13, 2017 to repay the money to Defendant 300 million won.