beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. On January 2013, the Defendant agreed to operate a concrete pumps construction equipment business by investing with the Plaintiffs, and the operating profits generated from the said business were divided equally between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.
Pursuant to the above agreement, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant engaged in the business of Plaintiffs C and A with each of 80 million won, Plaintiff B with each of 70 million won, and the Defendant’s investment of KRW 100 million in each of E.
Although the Defendant received a part of the proceeds from the operation of the aforementioned business from the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s transfer to the Agricultural Cooperative Account and disbursed the pumps, vehicles, and taxes, the remaining profits from the transfer of the proceeds from the operation of the said business were to be settled later, the Defendant embling the revenues deposited in the said passbook with personal intent to use them individually. On January 4, 2013, the Defendant embling 5,000 won out of the revenues deposited in the said business during the business custody of the said business to F and embezzled them for personal purposes from around that time to March 27, 2015 by using the same method in total of 353,265,715 won as shown in the attached list of crimes, at the same time during the period from around that time to March 27, 2015.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 353,265,715 won and damages for delay due to tort caused by the above embezzlement to the plaintiffs.
2. Determination
A. The crime of embezzlement is not established on the ground that a partner withdraws the money for personal use within the scope of the amount, given that if a separate individual fund was deposited in the head of the Tong managing the property of the association, the amount cannot be deemed as the property of the association, since it cannot be deemed as the property of the association.
(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8322 Decided January 10, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8121 Decided November 14, 2013) B.
Facts of recognition
The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry number of Gap evidence Nos. 8, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 40 exists: