logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.06.29 2017고단3295
업무상배임
Text

Defendants are innocent.

Reasons

1. Defendant A, from May 11, 201 to July 31, 2015, is a person who had worked as an internal director of the chain (ju) E-E (ju) from June 9, 201 to February 1, 2015, and currently worked as the president, who is an entrusted nursery business entity in the workplace, for the purpose of mediating patents and technology, manufacturing, selling, and providing services for infants’ clothes.

Defendant

B is the representative director of the victim company from December 9, 2013 to July 31, 2015, and a person who served as the inside director from February 10, 2015 to February 10, 2015.

The injured company is a holding company with 65.10% of the shares of E as of the end of December 2013, and the G Foundation is an affiliated company of the injured company.

A. (State) On February 13, 2014, Defendants of occupational breach of trust in relation to joint and several debt guarantee were recruited to offer a joint and several surety in the name of the victim company at the victim company’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H to the (State) company’s subsidiary company of the victim company.

However, at the time (State) EE had only KRW 400 million operating income as of December 2013, while the current net loss had reached KRW 90 million, and the long-term loan has reached KRW 3.75 million (interest rate of KRW 6.9%) and the short-term loan has reached KRW 489,438,000 (interest rate of KRW 6.8%) and it is difficult to pay the above interest payment in operating income. Since there was no possibility of paying the above interest payment in operating income, the settlement amount of the bill at the time was KRW 5-7 billion and the monthly salary was sealed by employees, etc. (the rehabilitation application was filed around July 2014). Thus, even if the operating fund was loaned from I bank, it was not possible to repay the loan because it was impossible to use it in part, etc. for the payment of existing interest.

Nevertheless, the Defendants violated the duty to maintain and manage the property of the victim company (State).

arrow