beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) is a company that runs the business of building and providing networks and collecting and keeping sales slips so that it can deliver credit cards, cash receipts, etc. to credit card companies or the National Tax Service to deal with affairs such as credit card inquiries, payment approval, and settlement of payments.
Plaintiff
C was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company from March 25, 2008 to August 13, 2012, and Plaintiff B was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company from September 28, 2012.
B. Around January 2008, around December 2009, and on three occasions on January 201, 2013, the Plaintiff Company was selected as a business entity that deals with affairs, such as credit cards and approval for settlement of cash receipts (registration, selective distribution, etc.) of nationwide post offices administered by the Korea Post D Center.
C. 1) E operates G, etc. with sheshea F, and F is the her representative director. H is the her husband, and I was retired on or around June 30, 2007 while serving as the Director General of the J-Post Office. K is the Information and Communications L Center (former Korea Post D Center, hereinafter “D Center”) from around July 3, 2006 to July 3, 2008.
(2) On January 16, 2014, H was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years, for two years, and for two years, for E, for a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and for the crime of offering of bribe as follows.
(Seoul Western District Court 2013Gohap235, etc.). On the above judgment, H, I, and E appeal (Seoul High Court 2014No399). On July 11, 2014, the Seoul High Court reversed the first instance judgment on H, I, and E and reversed the crime committed under the part of KRW 15,560,671, which was paid by the Plaintiff Company on October 16, 2012, among the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by H, I, and E.
A. Paragraph 2 is part of the judgment of not guilty, but remaining.