beta
Text
1. Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are each of the Plaintiff KRW 3,951,90,000 and their related amount from October 28, 2013.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project in a rearrangement zone of 210,910 square meters in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Defendant D is a former head of the Plaintiff’s association. Defendant E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L are currently the former directors of each Plaintiff.
(2) Defendant B was the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) who runs the business of building reinforced concrete.
B. (1) Defendant D, E, F, G, and H: (i) the Plaintiff’s redevelopment construction work and service, in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) that received a bribe of KRW 850 million from Defendant B in relation to the Plaintiff’s redevelopment construction work; (ii) the construction contract unnecessary as a duplicate contract from September 4, 2009 to October 28, 2013, which entered into a contract for a construction project and paid a service amount of KRW 5497,500,000 won in total to Defendant C by paying the service amount of KRW 5,97,500,000 to the Plaintiff; and (iii) the crime, such as violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation); and (iv) Defendant B was convicted by the Seoul Western District Court on February 3, 2015 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014, Jun. 26, 2015).
(2) Defendant B, D, E, F, G, and H appealed against the above judgment, but the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the said Defendants’ appeal on September 14, 2015 (Seoul High Court Decision 2015No735, etc.).
Defendant B, D, G, and H appealed to the above appellate judgment, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the said Defendants’ appeal on January 14, 2016 (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do15251).
(hereinafter referred to as "relevant criminal judgment"). The contract amount on the annual day (unit: won and value added tax separate) contract amount, and the amount of damages in breach of trust on September 1209.