beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.27 2017나2005103

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts written or added. As such, the court's explanation concerning this case shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 8, 201) "No. 8, 201" shall be added to "No. 8, 2001."

Each "Plaintiff" in the third third part of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied to each "Defendant".

The Seoul Dong-dong District Prosecutors' Office of Seoul shall be referred to as the "Seoul Dong-dong District Prosecutors' Office" in Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court.

The last sentence of the 6th judgment of the first instance court was "The appeal was dismissed on January 20, 2017 (Seoul High Court 2016No2721)" to "The appeal was dismissed on January 20, 2017 (Seoul High Court 2016No2721), and the defendant appealed against this, but the appeal was dismissed on June 29, 2017 (Supreme Court 2017Do2413)."

In Part 3 of Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court, "No. 23-3" is added to "No. 24-6 and No. 45."

2. The further determination of this Court

A. (i) Judgment on the argument that the amount during the period of suspension of business should be deducted from the Defendant’s embezzlement (=8,000,000 won x 2 months) should be deducted from the Defendant’s embezzlement amount, since the Defendant’s head of Seoul Shi-ro notified the withdrawal of acceptance of a general restaurant (general restaurant) around January 2002, from that time until February 2002, the operation of Lestop was suspended for a period of two months from the date of acceptance of the application for provisional disposition on the above withdrawal notice, and the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant money during the above period.

B. The plaintiff sought compensation from January 1, 2006 to April 201, 2015 from December 2005 to March 2015, 2015 against the defendant, and the defendant's assertion is as above.