logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2020.05.28 2017가합103486
가지급금 반환 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose purpose is livestock products Do, retail business, etc., and the Defendant was the Plaintiff’s representative director from September 7, 2004 to January 6, 2017 established by the Plaintiff.

As of September 7, 2004, at the present of the plaintiff, inside directors C (open name: D) and the defendant were married couple, and C was employed as the plaintiff's director from September 7, 2004.

B. On November 18, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking a divorce, etc. against C on November 18, 2016 with the Busan Family Court No. 2016ddan21695 (Transfer 2017dhap201593), and C filed a counterclaim claiming a division of property, etc. on July 20, 2017.

On June 20, 2019, the Busan Family Court rendered a judgment to the effect that the claim for the principal lawsuit on judicial divorce was filed and the division of property was determined on the premise that the marital relationship was broken down due to C’s fault. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C and the Defendant jointly operated the Plaintiff Company before divorce as above.

C. From April 21, 2005 to October 29, 2016, C filed a complaint against the Defendant to the Busan District Office of District Prosecutors’ Office on the ground that “the Defendant’s act of withdrawing KRW 154,922,641 in cash from the Plaintiff’s National Bank E account from the Plaintiff’s National Bank E account, and then entering in the cash account book as a reflective act, etc., constitutes occupational embezzlement. However, the investigative agency issued a disposition of uncomfortable evidence on July 29, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 41, 42, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not actually pay the provisional payment to the Plaintiff, but brought up the Plaintiff’s cash under the pretext of “the half of the provisional payment.” The Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the Plaintiff’s funds from the Plaintiff’s corporate account and the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Defendant, or embezzled by transferring them to the Defendant’s personal account.

The defendant is paid as a half of the provisional deposit, or voluntarily withdraws from the plaintiff's account.

arrow