beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff embezzled the Defendants’ benefits and retirement allowances during the period of their employment as the Defendants’ D Co., Ltd.
Reasons
While the Defendants asserted by the parties were in office in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), they returned 30% of the benefits received by the Defendants from around February 2006 to around March 2007 for the purpose of using them as operating funds. Since the Plaintiff embezzled them from around that time to around March 2007 and consumed them for personal purposes, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay Defendant C the amount of embezzlement amount of KRW 99,891,955, and KRW 198,597,778 to Defendant B.
Plaintiff
Around February 2006, the Defendants did not return 30% of the paid benefits to the non-party company, and even if they returned, there was no fact that the Plaintiff embezzled the funds of the non-party company. Even if the Defendants embezzled domestic affairs, since February 2006, the Plaintiff’s tort liability against the non-party was extinguished by prescription.
Judgment
In full view of the purport of the evidence No. 2 and No. 1 through No. 3 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, in light of the fact that some of the benefits returned to the non-party company, as argued by the Defendants, is rather the account in the name of Defendant C, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff embezzled part of the Defendants’ benefits, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed liable to compensate the Defendants for damages caused by the embezzlement. Even if the Plaintiff embezzled it, it is apparent from March 2007 to March 10, 207, the fact that the Plaintiff embezzled part of the said benefits, which was alleged by the Defendants, is apparent in fact, and thus, the Plaintiff’s damage liability
On March 2014, the Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations has been interrupted since they applied for a payment order as Seoul Western District Court 2014j1631. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Defendants asserted against the Plaintiff on March 19, 2014.