beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the court added the evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including paper numbers) to the "Evidence Nos. 2 and 5 (including paper numbers)" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) added the following items after the second part No. 17; and (c) amended the "Paragraph No. 18 (c)" in the second part to the "paragraph (d)," and therefore, it is identical to the statement No. 1. 2 in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thereby, it
“C. Nonparty Company conducted a inventory inspection as of March 9, 2017, and compared with the receipts and disbursements of Nonparty Company’s non-party company, the product amounting to KRW 88,787,100 at the time of sales was insufficient.”
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount calculated at 70% of the sales price at the time of inventory inspection for the insufficient inventory goods, barring special circumstances. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 62,150,970 (= KRW 88,787,100 + KRW 0,000) plus KRW 10,917,865 (= KRW 62,150,970 – KRW 10,000,000, unpaid fees, and KRW 7,917,865).
B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is different from the fact that the result of the Nonparty Company’s inventory inspection was different, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was subject to a disposition of no suspicion from the prosecutor of the competent District Prosecutors’ Office in relation to the case of occupational embezzlement on August 7, 2017, but the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the result of the Nonparty Company’s inventory inspection was erroneous. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s assertion was erroneous. In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 6, the Defendant transferred the status of the manager of the instant intermediate management contract on March 10, 2017 to F, and transferred the inventory content as of March 9, 2017 to F, the quantity (pcs) 2712, 13, 640.