1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,900,574 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 19, 2019 to August 18, 2020.

Facts of recognition

On July 19, 2018, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 years of suspended execution due to occupational embezzlement in this court, which became final and conclusive as it is.

The facts charged in the above judgment are as follows: (a) the Defendant, from July 2, 2015 to November 20, 2015, 1,550 won as an internal director at the Plaintiff’s C (at the Hague shop, main office, and four-day shop) and embezzlement of KRW 1,550,00 as a method of omitting cash sales at the above beauty shop; (b) KRW 9,297,030 as a method of withdrawing part of the profits; and (c) KRW 3,053,544 out of the profits of the above beauty shop; and (d) KRW 1,547,200 of the education expenses received from D High School.

[Based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff defendant is obligated to pay each of the above amounts to the plaintiff as compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment, since the plaintiff's defendant embezzled some of 4,740,000 won out of the price of metc business, 18,026,410 won out of the proceeds of beauty service and the sales of goods, 16,294,000 won out of the sales of the four-day shop, and 1,547,200 won of the education expenses received from D High School, respectively.

There is no dispute over the amount of occupational embezzlement recognized by the final and conclusive judgment of the defendant, but the defendant does not have any obligation to return it to the extent exceeding it.

In addition, the part of the education expenses of the D High School was already paid by the defendant.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 15,447,774 won as compensation for damages caused by embezzlement (i.e., KRW 1,550,000 KRW 9,297,030 KRW 3,053,544 KRW 1,547,200) and damages for delay. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant embezzled more than the above amount than the above amount, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified only within the extent of the above recognition.

On the other hand, the defendant's statement No. 3 added to the whole purport of the pleading.