(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.06 2014가단253307

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.06 2014가단253307

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From March 2013 to June 2014, the Plaintiff was engaged in the overall management of mobile phone, Internet, and TV subscription sales and opening, sales performance of stores, and market funds at the D points and E points of a stock company (hereinafter “C”) which is a mobile phone agent operated by the Defendant from March 2013 to June 2014.

B. On September 27, 2013, the Plaintiff collected more than the actual amount of money designated for the purpose of the so-called “pest” that provides customers with subsidies for opening a mobile phone sales account from the Defendant among the sales incentives owned C, and received KRW 1 million from the new bank account in the name of the Defendant to the new bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and then embezzled KRW 4,153,320,000 for 17 times from September 2013 to February 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,153,320 in total from September 27, 2013 to February 2014.

C. On March 7, 2014, at C’s above D points, the Plaintiff confirmed whether the applicant himself/herself or his/her client himself/herself or his/her agent is the person delegated by him/her if he/she is opened and sold a mobile phone and opened the mobile phone, and confirmed whether he/she is the person himself/herself. Notwithstanding his/her occupational duty, the Plaintiff violated his/her duty so that he/she would receive payment for the sales and use of a mobile phone, such as not receiving an application for subscription, if it is not confirmed whether he/she is the person himself/herself, and in violation of his/her duty, the Plaintiff received the name and resident registration number of the new applicant by telephone and arbitrarily prepared the “T service new contract” and “the contract for the installment transaction of a mobile phone” in the name of the applicant, and then made it difficult to receive the payment by allowing C to sell the mobile phone as the so-called

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2015.10.01 2015고단2036

-인천지방법원 2014.05.30 2014고단1778

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.29 2015가단126242

-대구지방법원 2020.11.05 2020고단913

-수원지방법원 2014.01.15 2012고단4876