손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the appeal against the defendant Sam L&C Co., Ltd. are all dismissed.
2...
1. The court's explanation on this part of the liability for damages is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the cases of dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is intended to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The testimony of the witness B and G in the third place of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be based on “the testimony of the first instance witness G and the result of the examination of the party concerned in the first instance against the defendant B”.
The following shall be added to the fourth 7th of the judgment of the first instance.
Defendant C&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).
(1) Defendant B, while disputing the fact that Defendant B was an employee of the Defendant Company, submitted the certificate of No. 11 and 13 in the trial of the first instance on March 23, 2014 regarding the issuance of the tax invoice as of March 23, 2014. However, the certificate of No. 11 was issued after May 20, 2014 on the ground that the Defendant Company cancelled the tax invoice as of March 23, 2014 on the grounds of the cancellation of the contract, or after May 20, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and the certificate No. 13 issued the tax invoice as above. 13 without permission. It is difficult to believe that the originator was an employee of the Defendant Company, in light of the fact that he was an employee of the Defendant Company and the developments leading up to the issuance of the tax invoice as of March 23, 2014. Therefore, it is insufficient to reverse the fact that Defendant B was an employee of the Defendant Company.
The following shall be added to the fourth 20th of the judgment of the first instance.
Defendant Company argued that the amount of KRW 1,948,230 paid to Defendant B on April 15, 2014 was not retirement pay for March 2014, but retirement pay. However, Defendant B is entitled to retirement pay for less than one year.