손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff: (a) imposed an administrative fine on the Defendant on the Defendant; (b) filed each claim for damages due to the theft, tent damage; and (c) destruction of vehicles, respectively, on May 17, 2013; and (d) the court of first instance accepted only the claim for damages due to the imposition of an administrative fine; and (b) dismissed the remainder.
Since the plaintiff appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the remaining parts except the claim for damages due to the imposition of fines for negligence.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is liable to pay the Plaintiff total amount of KRW 2,025,00 (= KRW 450,000 KRW 450,000 KRW 675,000) to the Plaintiff, since the Defendant, as an employee of the Plaintiff’s “C” from March 15, 2013 to May 28, 2013, engaged in the business of transporting grains, such as rice, to the employees of “C” operated by the Plaintiff. As seen below, the Plaintiff suffered damages by committing a tort.
Around May 8, 2013, the Defendant destroyed a tent in the upper part of a tent loaded at the Plaintiff’s 1 ton of a tent owned by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff spent KRW 300,000 at the replacement cost of the entire tent.
B. Around May 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 20kg of rice 20km; (b) 2 glutinous rice 5kg of lutinous rice; (c) 1 glutinous rice 3kg; and (d) 15 glutinous 149 g; (b) returned only 5 glutinous 15 g; (c) thereby cutting down the remaining 10 glutinous 450,000 (=45,000 per 1 glutinous x 10 glutinous rice).
C. Around May 28, 2013, the Defendant used rice 20kgs of 150 glutinous rice, 40 glutinous rice 40 glutinous rice, and 152 glutinous rice. Around the following day, the Defendant returned 110 glutinous 15 glutinous 15 glutinouss of the remainder by returning 110 glutinous glutinous 15 glutinouss (=45,000 per one glutin x 15 glus).
The defendant, around May 27, 2013, set a 2.5 tons cargo vehicle owned by the plaintiff, at the diver level.