logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.08.12 2015가단125579
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) from January 2, 2012 to July 7, 2014, the Defendant served as the president of the Plaintiff for the purpose of leather salting business, etc.; (b) while working for the Plaintiff, the Defendant collected KRW 163,094,04,040 from C and collected KRW 142,261,940 from D and used the raw chromoe processing fees; and (c) the said transaction partner, in addition to the said transaction partner, trades with E, E, F, G, H, I, and I as non-data; and (d) the part of the discretionary processing fees received in cash and used or embezzled for personal use or embezzlement of KRW 71,96,760 from among the money received in cash, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages.

B. Determination is without dispute between the parties that the Defendant served as the president of the Plaintiff from January 2, 2012 to July 7, 2014, but it is not sufficient to recognize the Defendant’s embezzlement of cash deposited from E or other transaction partners by personal use without depositing the cash in the company. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff embezzled more than KRW 300 million deposited from the transaction partners, including C, on the ground that the Plaintiff embezzled more than KRW 300 million, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of non-guilty charges due to lack of evidence on July 9, 2015, and the Plaintiff was subject to a second investigation upon appeal, but it can only be recognized that the Defendant was subject to a disposition for the same reason again on March 30, 2016.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow