logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.17 2017가합518545
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) in collusion by the Defendants, committed a tort of embezzlement by transferring KRW 2.65 million from the Plaintiff’s bank account to another company’s bank account; (b) thereby, the Defendants were liable to compensate the Defendants for damages (the partial payment out of KRW 1.97 billion, which was deducted by the Plaintiff from the above embezzlement amount).

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, the Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of drug wholesale business on May 23, 2012. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 2.65 billion from the Plaintiff’s bank account to the bank account in D (hereinafter “D”). At the time of the said transfer, the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of the said transfer [E [WF (Death on June 1, 2015)]. Defendant B (NF’s south) was the Plaintiff’s internal director and retired on May 23, 2015, and completed the registration of retirement on June 3, 2015, and the fact that Defendant C was the director of the Plaintiff’s accounting division at the time of the said transfer.

However, the above facts and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 35 (including each number), alone, are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the defendants embezzled the above amount without permission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1 through 16 (including each number), in cases where Eul filed a complaint against defendant Eul as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), "D has a claim amounting to KRW 2.65 million against the plaintiff. However, the defendant Eul, the actual manager of the plaintiff, transferred the amount of KRW 2.65 million from the plaintiff's account to D account for debt repayment without obtaining the approval of Eul, the representative director, is valid as the repayment of the company's debt within the plaintiff's actual manager's authority, and it is the owner of the funds.

arrow