logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가합4860
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Defendant asserted as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is a person who works for the Plaintiff’s personal business chain C and D from August 1, 2006 to December 21, 201, and for the Plaintiff’s corporate director C from December 21, 201 to June 11, 2015, respectively, as accounting staff.

As above, the defendant embezzled the plaintiff's money while working as accounting staff as follows. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of embezzlement amount of 74,853,080 won and damages for delay due to tort compensation.

From October 9, 2009 to February 28, 2011, 1) embezzled KRW 324,318,143 in total by transferring money from the bank account (E) in the name of the Plaintiff to the account under the name of the Defendant, or by transferring money from the bank account (E) in the name of the Defendant. (2) On September 24, 2008, the Plaintiff embezzled KRW 100 million from the bank account (F) in the name of the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s G enterprise bank account.

3) From March 31, 2010 to April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff embezzled 62,852,440 won ($56,438) in total by withdrawing money deposited from the bank account under the Plaintiff’s name from the bank account to the bank account under the Defendant’s name from October 29, 2010 to November 5, 2010.

5) From April 7, 2010 to June 16, 2010, the Plaintiff embezzled KRW 28,545,413 in total by withdrawing foreign currencies from the Plaintiff’s wife J’s account and transferring it to the Defendant’s account in our bank account in the name of the Defendant. 6) on October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff embezzled KRW 5 million by depositing money deposited from the Plaintiff’s bank account in the Defendant’s corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant.

B. Around March 2014, the Plaintiff embezzled construction cost as a result of the multiple children’s burial, the Plaintiff concluded an internal interior interior interior interior design contract with M, and five times via the Defendant in charge of remittance.

arrow