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 judgment of the court of first instance.
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the first instance judgment, except for the dismissal or addition as described in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added, concerning the claim for damages due to the violation of supervisory duty, is dismissed as follows. The part concerning the claim for damages due to the violation of supervisory duty is as follows: (A) First, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant is responsible for the negligence of business not properly managing and supervising the act of embezzlement by the co-defendant B (hereinafter “B”) of the first instance court, a subordinate employee, at the time of the Defendant’s work as the director of the Plaintiff’s processing office from April 1, 2002 to February 1, 2004.
(Defendant’s preparatory brief dated November 22, 2016). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall be liable for damages arising from the Plaintiff’s breach of supervisory duty as above.
B) As to this, the Defendant asserts that this part of the damage claim has expired due to the expiration of the prescription. Whether an agricultural cooperative is internally liable to the court, whether it is a claim against the court, or whether it is a claim against the employee, shall be liable for compensation or liability for damages against the employee. The provisions on the extinctive prescription set forth in the above general rules apply to cases where the union claims against the employee for damages under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da76221, Apr. 24, 2008). Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 3 and evidence No. 56, Article 49(1) of the Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary Action against Members Associations, the right to claim compensation against the employee is not exercised for three years from the date on which the employee union becomes aware of damages, or where the employee's fault was at the end of ten years prior to the occurrence of the accident, five years from the date of the accident.