손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that Defendant B, a staff member in charge of Defendant B, established a plan to establish a tombstone in the instant farmland center through consultation with the Plaintiff, and requested the Plaintiff to submit a written estimate of materials to install a tombstone in accordance with the direction of the former J, and then the Plaintiff purchased the materials and loaded the materials in the instant vinyl house. In the process, Defendant B employed the Plaintiff as a stone yard in the G exhibition hall in the operation of Defendant Do.
In this regard, there was Defendant Do’s undertaking that Defendant Do would rent the instant vinyl from the Plaintiff as a tombstone and let the Plaintiff manage the G seedlings facilities, and in return, pay the annual salary of KRW 20 million annually.
However, Defendant Do, on the ground of Defendant B’s retirement, reversed the plan for the installation of a tombstone without any justifiable reason, and loaded materials on the instant vinyl and left it alone, thereby destroying the said undertaking without permission, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff.
Defendant B, a public official in charge of Defendant B, who led the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to hold consultations and commitments on the establishment of a grave, was at fault in the course of business, which caused the suspension of the performance of the undertaking due to lack of administrative procedures, and committed an illegal act, such as preparation of false public documents, and Defendant B, as the employer of the public official under his jurisdiction, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by such unlawful act.
Therefore, the Defendants jointly carried out the Plaintiff with Defendant Do’s undertaking, and (i) the Plaintiff was unable to use the instant vinyl house from January 1, 2013 to February 29, 2016; and (ii) the cost of repairing the equipment destroyed by leaving the instant vinyl facilities neglected for a long time.