beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,473,050 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 16, 2016 to December 19, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing male refined with the trade name “C”. 2) From March 2016, the Plaintiff has requested the Defendant to perform the production of the back portion of the male refined, which is the back portion.
If the Plaintiff, purchased from Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T&T”), based on the foundation of the male fright base purchased from Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T&T”), and then released fright and re-service to the Defendant, the Defendant, as a wing part of the back part, supplied the Plaintiff with the wing and foundation process, and then supplied them to Samsung C&T with the products and sets on the market.
3) Around May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant to conduct an outsourcing work at a 500 straw joshes, a man who was commissioned from Samsung C&T; (b) around May 2016, the Defendant completed the wing work at the above Hashes and did not supply it without refusing to demand the return of the Plaintiff; (c) ultimately, the Plaintiff purchased from Samsung C&T in June 2016 the 11,767,050 raw Hashes of the same male Hashes, which were the same male Hashes from Samsung C&T, and then supplied D with the 50 straw Hashes, including the above Hashes, at the 30th of the same month.
During that process, the Plaintiff additionally purchased 656,000 won from F operating “E”.
5) The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of embezzlement, and the Defendant was indicted under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2016Kadan1909. On June 29, 2017, the said court acknowledged the Defendant’s embezzlement and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for four months, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. [The respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs A through 17, based on the recognition, were all made final and conclusive.]
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant committed an illegal act that was entrusted by the Plaintiff with the work of running away a male spawn and completed the work, but did not return it to the Plaintiff, and added to the Plaintiff for the supply of the said spawn.