beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a company that runs the construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal business, and Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s actual operator from around 201 to July 10, 201, and Defendant C is a person who served as the Plaintiff’s representative director from August 27, 2014 to July 10, 2017.
The Defendants conspired to embezzlement by receiving the Plaintiff’s sales amount from the Plaintiff’s employee’s account and withdrawing it in cash or remitting it to Defendant B’s family account, etc.
Accordingly, on December 11, 2014, Defendant B had the Plaintiff’s transaction partner remit the Plaintiff’s sales amount of KRW 10,000,000 to the account under the name of the Plaintiff’s employee D. Defendant C wired this to the account under the name of Defendant B’s spouse, and the Defendants embezzled the Plaintiff’s sales amount of KRW 2,40,76,100 over 140 times from December 11, 2014 to March 14, 2017.
In addition, Defendant C embezzled the total of KRW 507,882,500,000 on February 28, 2015, and KRW 107,882,50 on February 10, 2015, and KRW 100,000 on February 12, 2015.
Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay the sum of the above embezzlement amount of KRW 2,948,658,60 (i.e., KRW 2,440,776,100, KRW 507,882,50) to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B jointly with the Defendant C to pay the Defendants’ embezzlement amount of KRW 2,440,776,100, and delay damages for the said money as damages.
2. Reviewing the judgment on the cause of the claim, according to each of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), defendant Eul actually operated the plaintiff. The defendant C served as the representative director of the plaintiff, and the defendants established each of the Nong Bank in the name of D and F, which is the plaintiff's employee, and then let the plaintiff's transaction partner transfer the transaction amount to the above account, and can be acknowledged that part of the money deposited in the above account was withdrawn in cash or transferred to the defendant's relative account. However, the above facts alone are enough to support the fact that the defendants paid the plaintiff's sales amount.