2017 Gohap 506290 Damage, etc.

A Housing Association

B

May 12, 2017

May 30, 2017

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3 million won with 5% interest per annum from November 29, 2013 to May 11, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff Union is a regional housing association that obtained authorization for establishment pursuant to Article 32 of the Housing Act to build a housing unit in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant is the head of the Plaintiff Union from November 2005 to March 10, 2012, who represents the Plaintiff Union as the head of the Plaintiff Union and has overall control over the affairs of the Plaintiff Union, including recruitment of members, purchase of the project site, management and execution of the partnership expenses.

B. The Defendant received contributions, PF loans, and borrowed money, etc. from the members of the Plaintiff association from the account opened in the name of the Defendant’s individual prior to the acquisition of the association’s authorization, and managed and executed it for the Plaintiff association. Even after the acquisition of the association’s authorization, the Defendant continued to manage and execute the association funds through the Defendant’s personal account in the name of the Plaintiff association.

C. From May 14, 2006 to October 17, 2011, the Defendant embezzled KRW 11,071,798,931, total amount of funds of the Plaintiff Union and the individual account for the Plaintiff Union for personal use, such as the cost of living for women and women’s families related to the Plaintiff Union and the family members, the cost of living for women and women’s families, the payment or operation cost of his own company’s wages and expenses, the cost of his own employee’s entertainment drinking, the value of his own real estate, the purchase price of his own real estate, and the cost of his personal repayment. From December 29, 2006 to August 27, 2010, the Defendant embezzled KRW 1,971,410,540 for the total amount of funds of the Plaintiff Union, which were received directly in cash or in cash from the Plaintiff Union and the individual account’s family members, for the purpose of his own real estate embezzlement and his own property payment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 3,00,000,000 and 15% per annum under the Civil Act from November 29, 2013 (the plaintiff union shall claim damages for delay from the date on which the judgment of the first instance is rendered in a criminal case against the defendant) to the plaintiff union as part of the sum of the above embezzlements as to the above embezzlements, from November 29, 2013 (the plaintiff union shall claim damages for delay from the date on which the judgment of the first instance is delivered in a criminal case against the defendant) to May 11, 2017, which is the delivery date of the copy of the application for the purport of this case and the modification of the cause of the claim, and from the next day to the day

As the defendant ordered 80 members of the plaintiff union, it is argued that the defendant embezzled all or part of the contributions paid by the union members to the effect that the plaintiff union did not incur any damage to the plaintiff union, and therefore the part corresponding to the damages from embezzlement of the defendant should be deducted from the compensation for damage. Considering the above evidence evidence No. 3, the plaintiff union made a resolution to dismiss the plaintiff union under Article 12 of the articles of association on January 12, 2013. However, since the plaintiff union still still has the obligation to fully return the contributions, the part of the defendant's embezzlement related to the contributions should be deducted from the defendant's compensation for damage. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified, and it is ordered to accept it.

The decision shall be rendered as above.

Judges Lee Jae-won

Judges Yang Sung-sung

Judge Park Jae-il