beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 910,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from September 19, 2017 to August 14, 2018.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
From November 2012, the Defendant spent 82,288,90 won from the Plaintiff’s account to the Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s mother account by withdrawing KRW 48,116,50 from five accounts in the name of the Plaintiff managed by the Defendant, and then transferring KRW 31,960,400 to the Defendant’s or Defendant’s mother account. The Defendant embezzled KRW 82,288,900 (= KRW 48,116,500).
In addition, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff at the time of reversal of the de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff. The defendant collected the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure delivered to the plaintiff during the proceeding of the lawsuit, and infringed upon C office on November 25, 2014 without permission, and withdrawn 210,000 won of the deposit money owned by the plaintiff by using the passbook and C.
In addition, the Defendant embezzled by refusing to return 700,000 won gings and gold bings (hereinafter “the instant wooden bings, etc.”) which were kept upon the request of the Plaintiff for repair.
On the other hand, the plaintiff was the defendant.
The defendant is obligated to pay 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff, which suffered from mental suffering due to the act described in the paragraph.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 104,355,400 (=98,445,000 KRW 210,000 KRW 700,000) and damages for delay.
Judgment
Of the accounting work, the part on the compensation for losses caused by embezzlement (claim 1-A) and the plaintiff and the defendant maintained de facto marriage until October 2014, and the defendant maintained a de facto marriage relationship with the plaintiff and the defendant did not dispute between the parties, but the defendant embezzled the defendant's money withdrawn from each of the above accounts of the plaintiff's assertion during the above period only on the basis of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 3-1, 3-5 and the response of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to D banks.