logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.07 2019가단5242956
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 73,222,50 as well as 5% per annum from February 23, 2018 to July 7, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company selling the garment brand “C” product, and the Defendant entered into a sales management contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales management contract”) on July 27, 2015, and is a manager of the “E department store” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C” brand store (hereinafter “instant store”) from July 27, 2015 to February 23, 2018, in charge of the management of goods, customer response and sales, inventory, and sales.

B. According to the sales management contract of this case, the Defendant is obliged to sell the goods according to the amount determined by the Plaintiff, and cannot sell at a discounted price. The Defendant was obligated to keep the goods acquired from the Plaintiff under its own responsibility and to manage the inventory in order to avoid any inconsistency between the electronic inventory and the actual inventory due to the insufficient management of the goods in the store of this case

In addition, the Defendant was obligated to accurately enter the sales information of the department store computer system (EDR) and the Plaintiff’s computer system (POS) on the sales of goods that are settled by credit card according to the instant sales management contract and report to the Plaintiff.

다. 피고는 판매실적 제고와 관리수수료(판매실적수수료) 규모 확대를 위하여 고객을 상대로 임의로 할인판매를 하고 허위ㆍ과장 매출 입력과 취소 등의 방법으로 매출실적을 분식(粉飾)하였고, 그로 인해 원고가 백화점을 통해 수령하는 상품판매액(EDI금액)이 정상적인 상품판매액(POS금액)보다 89,222,500원 가량 줄어들었다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-8 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is deemed to have caused property damage to the plaintiff by failing to perform his/her contractual obligation properly. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the difference in sales amount of KRW 89,22,50 to the plaintiff as compensation for loss.

The plaintiff is false.

arrow