1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On March 4, 2016, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) whose representative is the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd”) lent to the Defendant, who was an employee of the Plaintiff, a temporary mine-ray treatment device and carbon bar, and agreed to lend for three months, and thereafter, to receive rent of KRW 200,000 per month.

However, the Defendant did not pay rent to the Plaintiff Company even after the period of free use expires, and returned the Plaintiff Company’s rent in the state of destruction of temporary light treatment equipment and carbon bars around December 8, 2016.

B. In addition, the Defendant, who is an employee of the Plaintiff Company, destroyed three accelerators supplied by the Customer.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent of KRW 800,000 (=200,000 x 4 months) 3,850,000 for the damaged temporary light treatment device value of KRW 200,000 for the damaged carbon, and damages of KRW 880,00 for the damage caused by the damage of the product (= KRW 750,000 for the manufacturing cost of the product + KRW 750,00 for the manufacturing cost of the product + KRW 70,000 for the printing cost of the product x 3 vehicles) and delay damages therefrom).

2. Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion of determination, the above amount is the amount that the Plaintiff company, not the Plaintiff, should seek payment to the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, even if examining the facts, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff Company agreed to lease the temporary radiation treatment equipment, etc. to the Defendant for a fee of three months after only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, and Gap evidence 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the visual ray treatment devices, etc. returned by the Defendant were destroyed as alleged by the Plaintiff only with the video of the evidence No. 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, it is recognized that the descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, 3, and Gap evidence 3-5 have damaged three of the visual radiation treatment equipment supplied by the defendant from the customer.