beta
Text
1. The obligation to return the provisional payment by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is specified in paragraph (2).
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, from November 1, 201 to June 30, 2013, while serving as the Defendant’s representative director and a managing director, was engaged in personnel management, finance, accounting, etc. Around April 2016, the Defendant asserted that the amount of embezzlement of the Defendant’s money under the pretext of provisional payment was KRW 175,497,247, and filed a complaint with the investigative agency.
B. On February 27, 2017, the prosecutor filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a summary order of KRW 5,000,000 with the following facts charged, and the court issued the said summary order on June 14, 2017 (hereinafter “instant summary order”).
1) On November 8, 2011, the Plaintiff received KRW 300,000 from the Defendant’s office, a person in charge of accounting and finance affairs, and consumed the Defendant’s personal use in accordance with his mind during the course of carrying out business for the Defendant. From around that time to August 10, 2012, the Plaintiff used KRW 5,80,000 for the same eight times in total as shown in the annexed crime list 1. (2) On November 26, 2011, the Plaintiff used the Defendant’s funds from D in charge of accounting and finance affairs to receive KRW 50,000 from the Defendant’s office and used the Defendant’s funds for personal use for the Defendant around that time.
In addition, from around that time to May 12, 2012, the Plaintiff arbitrarily consumed 3,940,000 won in total by the same 48 times, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (2).
3) On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff managed the Busan Bank Account (E) that manages the Defendant’s gas fuel subsidies, etc., and transferred KRW 1,500,000 from the said account to the Plaintiff’s Agricultural Cooperative Account (F) while keeping the Defendant’s funds for the Defendant’s business, and embezzled for personal use at that time. (4) The Plaintiff used the Defendant’s Agricultural Cooperative Credit Card around January 14, 2012.