beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 289,674,843 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 10, 2016 to March 28, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) The Plaintiff was a company manufacturing and selling food and sanitary supplies from around 2010, and from around 2010, imported “C” (hereinafter “instant goods”) manufactured in Japan (hereinafter “instant goods”) and sold them in online shopping malls, etc., and D was in exclusive charge of importing and selling the instant goods as the Plaintiff’s deputy head from March 2010 to October 2012. 2) The Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s spouse, entered into a contract for the fidelity guarantee (hereinafter “instant fidelity guarantee contract”) with D to the effect that “if the Plaintiff caused damage by intention or negligence for the next two years during the contract work with D, the Plaintiff will be jointly and severally liable for the damage” (hereinafter “instant fidelity guarantee contract”).
B. Relevant criminal case D: (a) on May 3, 2012; and (b) on the same year, the import agent chain company, while taking charge of importing and selling the goods of this case.
5. 25. A judgment was rendered on July 4, 2015, which sentenced 103,217,558 won in total to 103,217,558 to her account and embezzled for personal purposes on the grounds of occupational embezzlement, etc., and was sentenced to her imprisonment with prison labor for one year and 2 years in the suspension of execution.
(Seoul Central District Court 2014Gohap936, Seoul High Court 2015No516). C.
The Plaintiff in the relevant civil case filed a lawsuit against D on the ground of the aforementioned tort, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive to the effect that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 578,010,694 [i.e., KRW 544,793,136 [i.e., KRW 907,98,560 due to the act of selling salt of the instant goods from April 11, 201 to October 12, 2012 x 60% of the amount of damages caused by occupational embezzlement - KRW 103,217,558 - KRW 70,000 due to the deposit for repayment].”
(Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2049083 decided September 29, 2017). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry (including the provisional number) in Gap evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.