손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff requested the defendant B to seek a job for a substitute transport engineer on the condition of the weekly work of five days per week in order to look at the spouse who was in 5,00,000 won in salary, when requesting the defendant B to purchase cargo vehicles and arrange or arrange a substitute transport contract for cargo transport, and the defendant C was also aware of the above circumstances.
Nevertheless, the Defendants, despite being aware of the fact that the terms and conditions of door-to-door transport desired by Jinsung Korea Co., Ltd. were not the same conditions as the Plaintiff sought, were deceiving the Plaintiff or at least delegated the terms and conditions of door-to-door transport by the Plaintiff, and thus, did not clearly verify the terms and conditions of door-to-door transport. Accordingly, the Defendants, despite being delegated the terms and conditions of door-to-door transport by the Plaintiff, were against the duty of due diligence, ordered the Plaintiff to borrow KRW 63 million from HK Savings Bank as the purchase price for cargo, and arranged the Plaintiff to enter into a freight transport contract with Jinsung Korea, and received part of the above KRW 63
Therefore, even though the Plaintiff paid a loan equivalent to KRW 63 million, the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount as it did not actually perform the duty of door-to-door transportation because it did not meet the working conditions, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages to each Plaintiff as well as damages for delay from July 23, 2014, on which the Plaintiff received the loan.
2. The Defendants deceiving the Plaintiff as above on the sole basis of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 12, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, and 3, the video, and witness D’s testimony
Inasmuch as it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff violated the duty of care in the brokerage and arrangement of a shipping contract, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, as there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified.