logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.04.05 2016가단223163
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Presumed facts

A. From around 2005, the Plaintiff was supplied with the audience program and the soundproof product from Madim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Madar"), and the Defendant was an employee of Madar, who was in charge of transaction with the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff transferred the goods to the Defendant’s account from 2006 to October 201, 2010 at the request of Dammhemhemmmmmmmhe.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleading

2. From January 31, 2006 to January 19, 2010, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion deposited goods into the account under the Defendant’s name 44 times in total. However, the Defendant embezzled 30,256,180 won in total or in total.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff.

3. The judgment is based on the following circumstances, i.e.,, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s account on January 19, 2010 to the Plaintiff in the lawsuit claiming the price of the goods, which is, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s account. By January 19, 2010, the Plaintiff embezzled the Plaintiff’s money of the goods transferred from the Plaintiff before the date of January 19, 2010, and arbitrarily arranged the head of the transaction office, and then adjusted the money of the goods transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant to the Defendant, the Plaintiff, without any specification of the Plaintiff’s transaction in order to prepare the omitted account books after the Plaintiff paid directly to the Defendant to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was subject to a claim for the payment of the goods from the Defendant from the Defendant to the Defendant’s account without any specification of transaction, while issuing the said tax invoice from the amount of the goods to the Defendant on October 13, 2010.

arrow