beta
Text
1. The defendant's KRW 11,297,026 for each of the plaintiffs and 5% per annum from July 4, 2018 to November 21, 2019, respectively.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant invested KRW 50,000,000 in each of them around 2013, and thereafter opened a restaurant with the trade name “E” from Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and the first floor (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).
B. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed to distribute the remaining profits each month to 1/3 of the instant restaurant while operating the instant restaurant. Until November 2015, the settlement was made pursuant to the agreement, and Plaintiff B was working at the instant restaurant until the said time.
C. On November 2015, the Plaintiffs entered the Defendant with the operation of the instant restaurant in order to operate another restaurant.
Around that time, the Defendant (around November 201, 201) disposed of the instant restaurant around November 2016, and received KRW 102,50,000, total of KRW 72,500,000 for premiums, and KRW 30,000 for rental deposits.
Of the above money, the Defendant paid KRW 6,50,000 as real estate fee, KRW 358,00 as electricity, water supply fee, KRW 358,00 as electricity, water supply fee, KRW 450 as global income tax, KRW 6,805,814 as monthly salary and retirement allowance of employees, KRW 705,84 as monthly salary, KRW 705,84 as business partner accounts, and KRW 5,336,189 as monthly salary and retirement allowance of employees, and KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiffs (per 15,000,000 won). The Defendant received KRW 48,891,050 as the payment of unpaid benefits, etc.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint with the defendant on suspicion that the defendant arbitrarily embezzled the disposal proceeds of the restaurant in this case. The prosecutor, although it is found that there was a dispute between the complainant and the suspect about whether or not to maintain the restaurant sale and investment charges, and the suspect unilaterally settled the sales proceeds of the restaurant without undergoing a normal liquidation procedure, the suspect was aware of the financial status of the restaurant by operating the restaurant at the last time, and it was difficult for the defendant to settle the restaurant in a normal way.