손해배상(기)
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the liquor wholesale business after obtaining a comprehensive liquor wholesale business license.
B. From August 1, 2011 to March 4, 2013, the Defendant served as an employee belonging to the Plaintiff.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff settled and paid F the remainder after deducting all expenses incurred in the business of F, vehicle installment, and four premium from the amount obtained by deducting a certain margin from the sales revenue of alcoholic beverages to F for each class of alcoholic beverage. The aforementioned expenses include the Defendant’s salary.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 17 (the same as Eul evidence No. 6), Eul evidence No. 3-5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion 1) - The Defendant: (a) filed a false request for the supply of alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff did not receive an order of alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff’s client B, C, D, and E (hereinafter “instant four business establishments”); and (b) the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 153,640,600 (hereinafter “instant alcoholic beverages”) from the Plaintiff, and (c) embezzled or stolen the instant four business establishments, instead of delivering the alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff, thereby causing damages equivalent to the same amount. (b) Preliminary assertion 2) - Even if the Defendant ordered the instant alcoholic beverages, but did not directly embezzled them, according to the relevant criminal judgment against F, F embezzled embezzled goods against the Plaintiff’s customer through the Defendant; (c) the Defendant did not assist the Defendant to commit a tort; and thus, (d) the Defendant did not assist the Defendant to commit a tort as a manager of the business, and thus did not assist the Defendant to commit a tort under Article 70(3) of the Civil Act.
3. Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages based on the tort.