beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A shall be 146,892,233 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from August 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, a company that produces and sells automobile-related parts, sold Aluminum compressed chips generated in the process of manufacturing to Dong-nam Co., Ltd.
Defendant B operates a transport company with the trade name of “C”, and Defendant A worked for “C” from 2006 and driven a cargo vehicle.
B. Defendant B entered into a transport contract with Dongnam Co., Ltd., and had Defendant A carry the compressed chips with Aluminum in the Plaintiff’s plant using D cargo vehicles, and transported them to Dong-nam Co., Ltd.
C. From September 4, 2013 to November 17, 2014, Defendant A: (a) applied 41 times to the cargo vehicle; (b) applied the compressed chips to the said cargo vehicle at the Plaintiff factory to have the freight fest measuring less than the actual weight in a way that the freight fest is not accurately applied to the following boundaries; and (c) Defendant A applied to the vehicle waiting at the Plaintiff plant and the vehicle waiting at the Plaintiff plant to the degree of the weight difference and applied to the rest of the company, thereby cutting down the amount equivalent to KRW 146,892,233 of the market price of Aluminium chips in a manner that moves to the vehicle waiting at the same time as the weight difference with the vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above recognition that the liability for damages occurred, Defendant A is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the tort, and Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by Defendant A in connection with his/her performance of duties jointly with Defendant A, as the employer of Defendant A.
Although Defendant B alleged to the effect that he was not responsible for Defendant A’s illegal act, the evidence submitted by Defendant B alone that Defendant B had paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of Defendant A.
It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the damage was caused by such care as above.
3. Where an employer is liable for a tort committed by an employee by negligence.