1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid in the following manner shall be cancelled:

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a juristic person whose purpose is to vicariously keep books for filing tax returns, and the co-defendant D of the first instance court served as an employee of the Defendant juristic person by January 20, 201.

B. The Plaintiff, who believed that the Plaintiff paid value-added tax on his/her behalf, remitted the sum of KRW 200,000 on December 3, 2010 to the post offices or enterprise bank accounts under the name of D, and KRW 1,00,000 on December 24, 2010, KRW 6,000,00 on January 22, 201, KRW 280,000 on January 22, 201, KRW 1,000 on February 9, 201, KRW 1,00,000 on March 41, 201, KRW 10,000 on March 1, 201, KRW 17,000,000 on March 1, 17, 1000, KRW 100 on June 10, 201, KRW 100 on June 10, 2008.

C. However, D did not pay the value-added tax that the Plaintiff intended to pay the said money on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against D in relation to the said act, and the police investigation was conducted on October 10, 201, and as a result, filed a claim for summary order against D in relation to the support within the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office as a crime of fraud.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 2 through 9, and 11 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion that D, an employee of the defendant who was in charge of the plaintiff's tax entry, paid the value-added tax on behalf of the plaintiff, and used it at will by receiving a total of 11,580,000 won from the plaintiff as a substitute payment. Since D's receipt of money as a substitute payment of value-added tax in the course of dealing with the plaintiff's plane captain's plane captain's affairs is related to the execution of the defendant's corporation's affairs, the defendant, the employer, should compensate for

B. As seen above, D’s arbitrary use of money without paying value-added tax shall constitute tort against the Plaintiff even though it was paid by the Plaintiff for the payment of value-added tax. Thus, the Defendant’s above act is an employer.