(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.21 2016나423

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.21 2016나423

횡령금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 25,086,025 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from July 25, 2015 to September 21, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was operating a cafeteria called C (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and the Defendant was in office as the shop of the instant restaurant.

B. On May 11, 2015, the Defendant prepared and sent to the Plaintiff a letter of the following contents (hereinafter “instant letter”).

The defendant recognized that he embezzled 60,000,000 won while working in the restaurant of this case.

Accordingly, the plaintiff will take the action, and instead, the defendant promises to reduce the amount of 60,000,000 won for each month that has been embezzled since May 10, 2015.

The defendant promises to break away from the workplace without fulfilling the above commitment and to fully pay 60,000,000 won when another embezzlement occurs.

C. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million in total, including KRW 10 million on May 29, 2015, and KRW 20 million on June 2, 2015, in accordance with the instant written statement.

Since June 15, 2015, the Defendant retired from the point of the instant restaurant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60 million remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 30 million already paid from KRW 60 million, on or after May 10, 2015, as the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60 million when working at the instant restaurant after the date of May 10, 2015, but the Defendant retired from the instant restaurant.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that “Isn't have embezzled the amount of KRW 60 million at the instant restaurant, but there was no choice but to make a report to the police by threatening the Plaintiff with violent inclinations, and thus Isn't have to do so.” As such, Isn't argue that Is't have to make a declaration of intention under each of the instant documents, Isn't argue that Is't have to be revoked because the declaration of intention under each of the instant documents was made by coercion. 2s.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.09.02 2015가단23399

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.02 2017나30086

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.10.04 2015가단14525

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.09.01 2016가단102616

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.09 2015가단141753