beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,370,80 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 28, 2013 to July 9, 2019.
Reasons
1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties, or may be admitted by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 14, 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11 (including each number):
From March 1, 2008 to February 28, 2014, the defendant served as the head of the plaintiff's branch office, and D served as the head of the office in charge of the plaintiff's accounting from January 7, 201 to March 31, 2014.
B. Around June 2014, E, etc., appointed as the head of the Defendant’s branch as the replacement of the Defendant, filed an accusation with the investigation agency on the fact that the Defendant and D embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds.
C. From January 7, 2011 to October 7, 2013, a prosecutor: (a) was suspected of arbitrarily consuming KRW 126,567,50 in total over 105 times among the Plaintiff’s operational funds that the Defendant received by preparing a false disbursement resolution; (b) was suspected of using KRW 29,400,000, which was kept in the Plaintiff’s trade union account on February 28, 2013; (c) in collusion with D, the charge of arbitrarily using KRW 29,40,000, which was kept in the Plaintiff’s trade union account; (d) was suspected of remitting KRW 118,727,452 in total for the Plaintiff from August 16, 2011 to January 29, 2013; and (e) decided not to institute a disposition of non-prosecution disposition.
Meanwhile, the prosecutor indicted the Defendant for occupational embezzlement on the fact that “the Defendant voluntarily consumeds KRW 15,467,00,000, total amount of the funds of the association in the course of performing duties for the Plaintiff on 13 occasions from January 18, 2011 to November 28, 2013, and used KRW 1,873,000 for personal purposes on 19 occasions from April 19, 201 to October 18, 2013.” However, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant not guilty on the whole of the facts charged for lack of proof of crime, and the appellate court also sentenced the prosecutor’s appeal to the dismissal of the appeal on grounded on the ground that the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and was finalized on June 30, 2018.
E. Meanwhile, D is the sum of funds of a cooperative that was kept on duty for the Plaintiff 60 occasions from August 16, 2011 to January 29, 2013.