beta
Text
1. On August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) filed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) KRW 23,936,729 and KRW 23,251,731 among them.
Reasons
1. On September 1, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold books, etc. under the trade name of Ulsan-gu C from Ulsan-gu, and the Defendant suspended the sale of books, etc. on August 18, 2010, with the Plaintiff’s business name E at the Plaintiff’s place of business on August 18, 2010.
In substance, the above E in the name of the defendant is a business entity operated by the plaintiff, who is employed by the defendant as the plaintiff's employee and received benefits, and when the sale of the book price sold to the defendant's business entity, it has been operated in a way to deposit it into the
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, witness F's testimony, the whole purport of pleading
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was operated under the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant received benefits from the Plaintiff, supplied books in the name of E, and deposited money out of the sales amount into the Plaintiff’s passbook. From 2010 to 2012, the difference between the sales amount and the deposit amount deposited from the Defendant Agricultural Cooperatives (G) to the Plaintiff Agricultural Cooperatives (H) was equivalent to KRW 105,02,979, and the difference between the sales amount and the deposit amount paid out from the Defendant Agricultural Cooperatives (G) was equivalent to KRW 105,02,979. The amount of the fourth premium, certification fee, telephone, and the loan amount paid to the Defendant under the name of the Defendant, the balance of the loan amount borrowed from the Defendant’s name, and the amount of
This is a part of the Defendant’s arbitrary withdrawal of cash or use of a card, and thus, barring special circumstances, it should be returned to the Plaintiff with the embezzlement money.
B. As to whether the Defendant embezzled the remaining money after deducting the said money from the difference between the sales amount of the account in the name of E and the deposit amount in the Plaintiff’s account, the Defendant operated the island delivery business in the name of E, but the Plaintiff actually operated it. The Defendant received benefits from the Plaintiff and operated the E.