beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant provided members with technology, funds, information, etc., thereby promoting forest management, and expanding the number of forest products produced by its members into the market and promoting the improvement of the status of its members. Since September 25, 2009, the Plaintiff was working as the head of the Defendant’s partnership and retired from the office of the head of the partnership on March 20, 2015.
B. On March 3, 2015, the Defendant pointed out the following as a result of the occasional audit of member cooperatives conducted from February 23, 2015 to February 25, 2015 by the National Forestry Cooperatives Federation from February 23, 2015, and demanded that the Plaintiff recover from the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 14,546,00 (the sum that is rounded off the white unit, and the amount that is not rounded off is KRW 14,545,660) and take a disciplinary measure equivalent to the amount of disciplinary action.
1) According to the budget compilation guidelines applicable to the Defendant, a cooperative head may not pay a transportation subsidy if he/she operates a government vehicle. From January 1, 2011 to February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 11,974,660, such as “the details of the payment of the transportation subsidy for the president of the cooperative since 11 year,” even when he/she was commuting to and from work by using a Vietnamnz vehicle owned by the Defendant. 2) The Defendant paid KRW 2,101,00 for the special bonus for the president of the cooperative in 2014 without undergoing the general meeting’s resolution required by the articles of association on December 24, 2014.
3 The Defendant paid the Plaintiff more than KRW 470,000 for six-day travel expenses, such as the statement of excessive payment of travel expenses to the Plaintiff, even though the period of the business trip and the number of actual travel days is inconsistent with the business purpose.
C. Accordingly, on April 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a resolution on the Plaintiff’s “Improvement Party” to the board of directors, and on April 14, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the said disciplinary disposition and demanded the Plaintiff to return KRW 14,546,00.
The Plaintiff against the Defendant on April 24, 2015.