(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.03.27 2014가단44612

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.03.27 2014가단44612

횡령금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the owner of the Songpa-gu Seoul Commercial Building C, and the defendant was employed as an employee of the main office located on the first floor of the above building (hereinafter referred to as "main office of this case") around 2004.

B. When the lease relationship was interrupted due to the circumstances of Nonparty D, who leased the main points of this case around June 2010, the Plaintiff received KRW 15 million from the Defendant and agreed to operate the main points of this case and distribute 50% of the net income to the Plaintiff.

C. From July 15, 2010, the Defendant operated the instant main points registered under the Plaintiff’s name and distributed profits therefrom. On June 30, 2011, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with a deposit of KRW 30 million in KRW and KRW 2.3 million in monthly rent as of June 30, 201, and paid KRW 26.5 million in total, including the said deposit of KRW 15 million in July 15, 201, and began to operate the instant main points independently from that date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 13, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had no reason to jointly operate the main points of this case, but the defendant first accessed the plaintiff and stated that "the defendant would distribute 50% of the profits from the operation of the main points of the lease deposit to 30 million won." The sales have been reduced rapidly compared to the first half of the lease deposit, and the defendant withdraws 46 million won from the first half of the lease deposit. In light of the fact that the defendant supplied alcoholic beverages directly from a place other than the business partner to sell alcoholic beverages in cash or received the balance sheet from customers, without returning or settling the inventory of alcoholic beverages remaining at the time of acquiring the main points of this case, the defendant added them to the plaintiff by embezzlementing them without returning or settling them.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.06.26 2018가단12332

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.18 2018나10042

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.09 2018고단4445

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.07.14 2016가단15050

-대구지방법원 2016.12.02 2016고단2383