beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 347,930,00 and its therefrom from April 14, 2012 to November 17, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From around 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of the goods and the payment of the goods to the other party with the South-North Korean farming cooperative (hereinafter “North Korean farming cooperative”) from around 2008, and the Nonparty union supplied the goods to the other party, the Plaintiff made a transaction by paying to the non-party union the remaining money after deducting a certain percentage of commission from the amount of the goods.
B. On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a continuous supply contract with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). From March 21, 2012, the Nonparty Co., Ltd. entered into a continuous supply contract with the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”); and
4. Until 13.13, 452,930,000 tons have been supplied. 200 tons have been supplied.
However, the Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiff only KRW 105,00,000 out of KRW 452,930,000,000, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 347,930,00 ( KRW 452,930,000).
C. Defendant B is an internal director of the Defendant Company; Defendant C is the actual operator of the Defendant Company; and Defendant D is a person in charge of the management and transaction of the Defendant Company’s funds.
The Defendants were convicted of fraud in the case of Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2013Ma1313, Jan. 27, 2014, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants conspired with the Plaintiff that they did not have the intent or ability to pay the full amount of the price in full even if they were supplied by the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendants deceiving the Plaintiff from March 21, 2012 to April 13, 2012, and were issued 200 tons of a total market price of 452,950,000 tons from Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2013Ma1313.
However, in the case No. 2014No209, the Seoul Eastern District Court, the appellate court, changed the facts charged against Defendant D into a fraud, and Defendant D was found guilty of aiding and abetting the morale of Defendant B and C by facilitating the crime with the knowledge of the intent to obtain fraud by Defendant B and C.
The criminal judgment against Defendant B is final and conclusive on June 23, 2014.