logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.09.21 2015가합23235
직위해제확인청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The plaintiff is a member of the defendant association (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant association") and is currently in office as an auditor, and C was elected as the chief director (the beginning date of the term of office on January 1, 2016) of the defendant association from February 1, 2005 to December 31, 201, and the chief director of the defendant association from October 1 to December 31, 201 to December 31, 201, from October 2005 to December 31, 201.

The evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of A. C, i.e., the criminal judgment and suspicion of misconduct against C, etc., were consumed by the Defendant Association’s former president from April 22, 2008 to April 23, 2010 for a total of KRW 12 million, which was kept for business purposes for D Association E branch through eight times from April 22, 2008 to April 23, 2010, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million by the Ulsan District Court on September 1, 2016 as an offense of embezzlement in the course of business.

C appealed against the above judgment.

The purpose of the evidence No. 5, No. 1, and the entire argument of the defendant association is as follows: F, the president of the defendant association, paid the value-added tax from 2010 to 201; F, the president of the defendant association, ordered the tax accountant in charge not to file a tax return for the sales of the above charging station; ordered the defendant association to pay the sales incentive to the members of the tax office in charge to pay the additional tax amounting to KRW 116,68,798 due to the omission of the value-added tax return; caused damage equivalent to the above amount to the defendant association; and caused the members to gain profits to the association; however, on December 22, 2015, the prosecutor of the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office filed a complaint for occupational breach of trust on the ground that C had no suspicion of the above accusation (Evidence of evidence).

Nos. 6, 7, and 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, and 5-2,

arrow