beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 3 million with 5% per annum from November 1, 2011 to January 12, 2016.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff filed a false complaint against the plaintiff and caused mental suffering, and thus, the plaintiff claimed consolation money, and the defendants did not file a false complaint.
2. Determination as to the claim
A. The facts under the recognition are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 11, 12.13, 14, 17, 18, 55, 56 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3.
1) The plaintiff is the officer and employee of the previous E church, and the defendants are the head of the above church and the representative of the association. 2) The old EM association had a old EM association and a new EM association, but there was a loan equivalent to KRW 900,000 on the land and building of the previous church, and there was a loan equivalent to KRW 2.6 billion on the land and building of the new church, and there was a loan equivalent to KRW 2.6 billion on the land and building of the new church, and the defendants were joint and several sureties for
3) The Plaintiff sold the site and the building of the new church in KRW 3.1 billion, and had the Plaintiff repay loans of KRW 2.6 billion to the Jinchi, and the Defendants used KRW 360 million out of KRW 500 million as their daily living expenses, hospital expenses, etc. (4) around October 201, the Defendants charged the Plaintiff with embezzlement of KRW 500 million to the Kim Young-gu Police Station for the following reasons: “The Plaintiff sold the new church site and the building of the old church in KRW 3.1 billion, around May 2011, after selling the land and the building in KRW 3.1 billion, the Plaintiff left the church with the balance of KRW 2.6 billion excluding loans of KRW 2.6 billion to the new church site and the building in KRW 3.5 billion.” After the Prosecutor sold the new church site around May 3, 201, and then embezzled the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s discretionary consumption of KRW 500 million in the down payment.”
5. Defendant B does not have any fact that he appears as a witness in an investigative agency and a criminal trial procedure and affixed a seal on the minutes of the party meeting selling the new meeting, nor did he delegate it.
The sale of a new meeting shall also be effected.