beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the full amount of KRW 6,295,365 and its payment from October 25, 2016.
Reasons
1. As to the principal claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, while operating a store with the trade name “D” in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1st floor (hereinafter “instant store”), the Plaintiff: (a) sold the collection office, work, etc.; and (b) from time to time assigned the instant store to the Defendant, who is an employee, and (c) ordered the Defendant to sell goods and immediately deposit money received from customers.
However, the defendant did not immediately put the price of the goods received from the customer into the treasury and embezzled the average amount of KRW 30,000 per day to the defendant's account, and all of the facts of embezzlement in the plaintiff's investigation to confirm it through CCTV images.
In addition, during the defendant's work period, the sales of the instant store continued to decline.
Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of 3,2760,000 won (=30,000 won per day x 26 days per month x 42 months per month x 42 months) and damages for delay.
B. (1) Determination (1) If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and Gap evidence Nos. 6 are added to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff is the operator of the store in this case, the defendant served as an employee of the above store from Jan. 2012 to Jun. 2015, the defendant did not immediately sell the goods and put the cash received from the customer into the front left in CCTV, and the fact that the defendant was taken into the CCTV. The plaintiff confirmed this, and that the defendant did not bring about about 2,30,000 won "on August 7, 2015, 2000."
(2) However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is the fact of embezzlement of the Defendant in light of the following circumstances revealed in light of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4-1 through 6, and Gap evidence Nos. 6’s video and the purport of the whole pleading.