1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 25, 201, the Plaintiff asserted 1) around July 25, 201, through B, who was working as the vice head at the Defendant’s branch, the Plaintiff purchased and used for the 68,700,000 Mesz E30 ELGGG vehicle (registration number C; hereinafter “instant vehicle”) from the Defendant. However, around March 2012, B was able to select one of Mesz vehicles from among his/her customers and exchange them free of charge by selling the instant vehicle as a middle and high-speed vehicle and exchanging the instant vehicle free of charge by promising B to deliver the instant vehicle to B, and obtain all necessary documents to receive the second and new vehicles.

B) However, on March 6, 2012, after receiving the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sold the instant vehicle to D on March 6, 2012 without paying the said money as the purchase price for the new vehicle under the Plaintiff’s name. In this process, the Plaintiff suffered losses in the amount equivalent to the market price of the instant vehicle. However, the Defendant, as the Defendant’s employer, was obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the said damages incurred to B, who was an employee of B under Article 756 of the Civil Act, as the Defendant’s employee, caused the Plaintiff to incur damages equivalent to the market price of the instant vehicle. However, the above acts do not constitute the Defendant’s business relationship, and even if the duty relationship is recognized, the Plaintiff did not know that the said acts do not constitute the Defendant’s business performance due to gross negligence. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Defendant.

B. On the one hand, the judgment is about the execution of the work, which is the requirement for the employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code.