beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 173 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from February 10, 2010 to May 25, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was established on January 15, 2001 and closed on November 13, 201, and was in charge of the vice president and accounting accounting of the Plaintiff Company during the pertinent period.
B. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on the grounds that the Defendant embezzled the Plaintiff’s money during the working period, and the Defendant was indicted for occupational embezzlement and embezzlement as follows on October 28, 2013.
Section 1 (Occupational Embezzlement) of the amount of temporary embezzlement method: (a) of Embezzlement 259,00,000 won (Occupational Embezzlement) received from D in return for the Plaintiff’s name transfer at the Central Expressway Start-Up Stick on April 28, 2007; (b) of Embezzlement 63,000,000 won (Occupational Embezzlement) of part of the amount of Embezzlement Embezzlement 110,000,000 won (Occupational Embezzlement) of the amount of the cancellation money of the same fire insurance in the name of the Plaintiff on April 4, 2008; (c) of Embezzlement 45,150,150,000 won (Embezzlement); and (d) of the amount of Embezzlement 110,00,000 won (Occupational Embezzlement); and (d) of Embezzlement 250,150,150 won (Occupational Embezzlement); and (d) of 50,2015 won (Occupational Embezzlement);
C. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant was found guilty on the grounds that the court of the first instance was both embezzled and embezzled (Seoul Northern District Court 2013dan2502), but the judgment of innocence was rendered on July 22, 2016 on the grounds that there was no proof of crime in relation to the above paragraphs 1, 4, and 5, and the remaining 2, and 3 were convicted (Seoul Northern District Court 2016No330), and the judgment became final and conclusive on the grounds that both the prosecutor and the Defendant’s appeal were dismissed.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 3
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. As acknowledged earlier, the Defendant embezzled KRW 63,00,000 out of the Plaintiff’s periodical termination amount of the Plaintiff’s new bank on April 28, 2007, and KRW 110,000,000 out of the Plaintiff’s termination amount of the fire insurance contract on April 4, 2008.