beta
Text
1. Defendant D:
A. The Plaintiff Co., Ltd.’s KRW 91,289,039 and its amount shall be from November 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 1, 1992, G established Plaintiff A for the purpose of wholesale business, etc. of automobile test-related products. On June 2003, G established Plaintiff B for the purpose of selling automobile products and parts, etc., and on September 2010, Plaintiff C established for the purpose of completion tea and wholesale and retail business of related parts.
B. At around 2001, G employed Defendant D to perform the Plaintiff’s accounting and accounting duties. Defendant D served from around 2001 to around 2010 in Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B while in charge of accounting and accounting duties. From around 2010 to around 2015, Plaintiff C served as a director and was in charge of accounting and accounting duties.
C. Defendant E, as the husband of Defendant D from around 207 to May 2008, operated the automobile-related parts wholesale business, etc. with the name of H and I from around May 2008. Defendant F served as the Plaintiff’s head of the business headquarters from February 201 to September 2012. Defendant F is running the transportation business with the trade name of J from around December 2012.
In around 2015, the Plaintiffs confirmed that Defendant D used the Plaintiffs’ funds at will and filed a criminal complaint against Defendant D on suspicion of occupational embezzlement. Defendant D was convicted of the facts constituting an embezzlement using the Plaintiffs’ funds for personal purposes in the occupational embezzlement case of Suwon District Court 2015Kadan5427, Jun. 29, 2016, and was sentenced to punishment for conviction. In the case of Suwon District Court 2016No4670, Suwon District Court 2016, the appellate court (hereinafter “relevant criminal judgment”), which was the appellate court, was convicted of all the facts constituting an offense, and was sentenced to the conviction, and the judgment of the appellate court (hereinafter “relevant criminal judgment”) became final and conclusive.
On the other hand, the specific embezzlement details recognized in the above criminal case are as shown in the attached Form.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply).