logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.09.18 2014가합38807
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,397,524 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 12, 2012 to September 18, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff is a school juristic person that operates the C School Universities (hereinafter “C University”).

B. From March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2013, the Defendant served as the president of C University.

2. Determination:

A. While the Plaintiff’s assertion is the president of C University, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 250,000,000 from his account in the school account book to his account. ② The Defendant wrongfully received KRW 148,50,000 from the school’s business promotion expenses for the benefit of the school; ③ used the corporate card for personal purposes; ④ used KRW 24,871,816 for the personal background survey expenses; ④ used KRW 24,860,00 for the personal background survey expenses; ⑤ paid KRW 36,876,40 for the office rent of the office leased for personal purposes; ⑤ caused the school to pay KRW 36,876,40 for the personal background survey expenses; and ② by doing the D business that should not be included in the school expense account, the Defendant sustained damages of KRW 37,397,524.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 282,505,740,000,000,000 already paid from the sum of KRW 532,505,740,000, and damages for delay therefrom, as compensation for damages.

B. According to the judgment on remittance amounting to KRW 250 million (1) A’s evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s account was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account on June 12, 2012, and the amount was transferred from the Defendant’s account to the Plaintiff’s account on June 28, 2012.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant embezzled the said money by having a school employee wired the said money to the Defendant’s account. However, if the said money was transferred to the Defendant and then the said money was returned to the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone led the Defendant to remit the said money to the intent of embezzlement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant embezzled the said money.

C. According to the judgment of KRW 148,50,000 (1) A, the defendant holds the office of president according to the evidence No. 6.

arrow