손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a company that processes and sells groundwater in the name of "C", and the defendant is employed by the plaintiff company as a factory head and director around September 2008.
A person who retired from office in May 2012.
B. On September 20, 201, Seoul Regional Food and Drug Administration conducted an inspection on C with respect to which the Plaintiff processed and sold, and discovered 12 times the base value.
In this regard, on October 27, 2011, he issued the order to recall the product to the plaintiff, and the contents of the order were reported to various media.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 18-1, 2, and Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff employed the Defendant as the head of a factory and a director to work together with the right to operate a factory. Although the Plaintiff’s production cost saving was possible through the exchange of existing materials, the Defendant failed to exchange existing materials on the grounds of falsity, and failed to comply with the basic rules on the water tank management, thereby allowing the Plaintiff’s product to detect cracks in excess of the standard values.
B. As a result of the Defendant’s above action, the Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 88,475,640 due to the material price, etc. and the amount of KRW 328,251,30 (the amount of KRW 5,734,00 for the product price recovered and disposed of, KRW 22,517,300 for refund, KRW 22,517,300 for refund, and KRW 300 million for brand value damage, etc.). Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of damages and delay damages.
3. The Plaintiff appears to have violated the duty of due care as a good manager and sought compensation for damages arising therefrom.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone refused to exchange materials with the grounds for falsity.
It has violated the duty of due care as a good manager, such as failing to comply with the basic rules for water tank management.