beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 68,107,60 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 26, 2011 to March 20, 2013.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff is a manufacturing company of electronic parts, etc., and Defendant B works as a factory site at the second factory of the Plaintiff Company located in Silung-si, and was in general in charge of the affairs of the second factory, and retired in May 201, and Defendant C is a person who operates the “E” producing L CD parts, etc.
(2) Around July 2007, Defendant B produced erbs used in semiconductor equipment using the Plaintiff Company’s production facilities and supplied them to Defendant C.
However, for the first two occasions, a false tax invoice was issued in the name of “F” rather than the Plaintiff, while supplying goods equivalent to KRW 98,107,60,00 in total from August 25, 2007 to April 25, 201.
(3) Defendant C issued a tax invoice issued in the name of the subsidiary without any doubt after hearing the explanation of Defendant B that “any gold problem exists and any smaller amount is to be issued in the name of the subsidiary,” and then transferred all the amount of KRW 98,107,600 to G bank account, a representative of F, as so requested.
(4) As above, Defendant B was charged with the crime of occupational breach of trust and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for August 2012, 201, when all the price of the goods paid by Defendant C was used in cash from G and embezzled at will.
(5) As a result of the investigation on May 31, 2012, the suspension of indictment was imposed on Defendant B, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B conspired with Defendant B, and that Defendant B paid the price of the goods to F upon his request. (5) G and Defendant C received a complaint from the Plaintiff due to the charge of aiding and abetting the instant act of breach of trust. As a result, on the ground that the criminal facts against G are not recognized, the suspension of indictment was decided on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that Defendant B conspired with Defendant B, and that Defendant C paid the goods to F.
(6) The Plaintiff is originally G.