logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.10.29 2014나3822
부당이득금등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2 (including paper numbers), 5, and Eul evidence 2:

The defendant worked as the head of the office E-Attorney office located in Busan Dong-gu, and C as the office assistant of the above attorney office.

B. On December 28, 2011, the Plaintiff delegated an attorney-at-law to the Busan District Court Decision 2011Da125966, which delegated the attorney-at-law to act on behalf of the suit in relation to the case of objection, and paid KRW 5 million to the attorney-at-law around December 28, 201.

C. On October 4, 2012, C made a false statement to the Plaintiff that “Around October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff and C shall obtain KRW 11,50,000 from the Plaintiff that “A request for cancellation bond and cancellation cost as to the compulsory auction and provisional seizure of real estate between the Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. to pay KRW 11.5 million.”

(hereinafter) On February 2, 200, the Defendant conspired with C to obtain a total of KRW 16,500,000 from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 16,50,000 to the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.

However, according to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant acquired the plaintiff's money in collusion with C, and rather, according to the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant can only recognize the fact that the defendant received a disposition of non-prosecution (influence of evidence) of the above suspicion of fraud against the plaintiff, so this part of the plaintiff's assertion is

3. Employers' liability;

A. The defendant is liable to compensate for the tort of this case of this case of this case by the representative supervisor under Article 756(2) and (1) of the Civil Act, since the defendant is in the position of supervising the office assistant of the attorney-at-law instead of the attorney-law who is the employer.

On the other hand, C exceeds KRW 15 million.

arrow