2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 20% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 80% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Defendant had been an employee of the Plaintiff’s ○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent Office. Around January 3, 2002, the Defendant arranged a contract for the sale of the real estate owned by Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 4, and in relation to the above real estate sales contract, Nonparty 4, the buyer, paid 190 million won, less the rental deposit 40 million won, which she decided to take over, among 230 million won, via the Defendant, etc., among the sales proceeds

B. Nonparty 2, a seller, was aware of the purchase price of KRW 2.10 million. Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 190 million, which is the difference between 200 million and 170 million, with respect to the Plaintiff, a real estate broker, who was the real estate broker, through the Defendant only received KRW 1.70 million except for the security deposit, and Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 20 million, which is the difference between 2004 Ghana4 and 473, which he received.

C. The Plaintiff’s contract was the Defendant’s participation and was unaware of its content, but according to the Defendant’s statement, the Plaintiff asserted that Nonparty 2, the seller, was paid KRW 190 million, which was the full amount of the purchase price.

D. On March 8, 2005, the court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay 20 million won to the non-party 2 and 5% interest per annum from February 20, 2002 to April 17, 2004, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and that "the plaintiff shall pay 34,493,370 won interest and interest per annum to the non-party 2 on July 18, 2007," which is due to the plaintiff's failure to appeal."

[Evidence: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 22, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

According to the above facts, the plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the defendant's tort of embezzlement without paying 20 million won to the seller, who is the victim, among the money he received from the buyer in the course of mediating a real estate sales contract. Thus, the plaintiff can exercise the right of indemnity against the defendant, who is an employee.

Furthermore, with regard to the scope of the right to indemnity, an employer may claim compensation for damages or exercise the right to indemnity against an employee only to the extent deemed reasonable in light of the principle of good faith in light of the nature and scale of the business, status of the facility, the details of the business, working conditions and attitude of the employee, the cause and nature of the harmful act, the degree of consideration of the employer as to the prevention of harmful act or the distribution of losses, and other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da52611, Apr. 9, 196). In light of the fact that the Plaintiff failed to properly manage and supervise the Defendant, who is an employee, caused the tort of this case by failing to properly manage and supervise the Defendant, and that the scope of the Plaintiff’s damages has been expanded by paying damages for about two years after the judgment against Nonparty 2 became final, it is reasonable to limit the scope of the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity against the Defendant as 80% of the amount of damages.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 27,594,696 amount of indemnity and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 29, 2007 to June 13, 2008, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to June 13, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jin-won