공갈갈취금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, from March 2004, performed a parking agency and proxy work at a D restaurant operated by C, and the Defendant served as the head of the office by November 20, 2013.
B. The plaintiff started to work at the above restaurant, and the defendant stated to the effect that "the restaurant is operated as a club business by C and the defendant, and all of the points recorded as an agent in accordance with the restaurant operation policy shall be paid fees at the end of the month (hereinafter "the end of the case")" to the plaintiff.
However, in fact, the defendant was neglected to the employee, and the usual C prohibited the fee from being imposed by an acting engineer such as the plaintiff, and the defendant was well aware of the above C's policies.
C. At the end of the instant case, the Plaintiff knew that the Defendant was an operator of the said restaurant, and paid money as monthly fee to the Defendant from March 2004 to November 201, 2012, with the knowledge that the Plaintiff was an operator of the said restaurant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, C’s testimony of witness of the first instance trial, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff would make the instant false statement to the Plaintiff, and acquired the amount equivalent to KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff in 2004, KRW 6 million in each year from 2005 to 2011, and KRW 52,500,000 in each year from 2002, and KRW 52,500 in each year from 2012.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, 52.5 million won and damages for delay.
In addition, as long as the Plaintiff did not pay money as the restaurant operator, the Defendant received 400,000 won from the Plaintiff, 2004 and 2005 as the meal expenses of the restaurant employees organized by the Defendant, and received 7,300,000 won in total from the Defendant’s gambling expenses of the Defendant around November 2008, and received 6,30,000 won in total from the Defendant’s gambling expenses, and received 7,300,000 won in total from the Defendant’s gambling expenses.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages.