2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Defendant Cheong Water Development Co., Ltd. is a company that trades real estate, develops, and implements real estate (hereinafter “Defendant Cheong Water Development”). Defendant 1 works as the representative director of the said company and resigned on October 24, 2013 and is currently in-house directors. The Plaintiff worked for the said company from July 15, 2013 to January 30, 2014.

B. On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the land ( Address omitted) 628 square meters (190 square meters) in Pyeongtaek-si, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”) and paid the down payment of KRW 14 million on the day, and paid the intermediate payment of KRW 11 million on July 30, 201 of the same year. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff sold 200 square meters on the land located in Sejong-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and replaced the fee of KRW 10 million with the remainder payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The facts of Defendant 1 do not have any authority over the instant land, and even if the purchase price is paid from the Plaintiff, they would be performed without the authority or intent to permit the registration of ownership transfer. Accordingly, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from tort, even if the purchase price was paid by the Plaintiff after concluding the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff. In addition, Defendant 1, the representative director, incurred damages to the Plaintiff due to Defendant 1’s breach of the duty of loyalty and duty of care as seen above, and thus, Defendant 1 and the Plaintiff are jointly liable to compensate for damages arising therefrom.

B. Determination

However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 entered into the instant sales contract with the intent to acquire the purchase price of the instant land without any authority. Rather, considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to Non-Party 1’s testimony (excluding part not believed partially), Non-Party 1’s representative director, Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 2’s representative director (hereinafter “Non-Party 1”; Non-Party 2’s ownership transfer on November 29, 201, Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2’s ownership transfer on the non-Party 1’s own land at the time of the above 39,284 square meters; and Non-Party 1’s ownership transfer on the non-Party 2’s non-Party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party-party share transfer on the non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party-party 2’s non-party-party 2’s non-party-party 2.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize a tort against Defendant 1, and the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendants premised on this is without merit to further examine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-chul