beta
Text
1. The claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff is the business owner of the Cagency, who runs the wholesale business of the Plaintiff’s ice and the Defendant worked as the Plaintiff’s business employee from January 2007 to April 2013, and managed 45 business partners of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff voluntarily retired around April 23, 2013.
In accordance with the practice under an employment contract with the Plaintiff or the principle of good faith, when a business employee retires, the customer shall organize the Plaintiff’s customer, inform the Plaintiff of the fact of retirement to the customer, and do not perform the obligation to take over the business employee so that the business employee may continue to conduct transactions in the future with the customer. Rather, it did not perform the obligation to seize 23 transaction partners among the Plaintiff’s transaction partners and supply the competitive agency’s ice ices, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s loss caused by the reduction of the Plaintiff’s sales amount, and the loss caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to
In addition, for the purpose of ice manufacturing and selling, the Defendant managed and supervised the location and loss of the freezing goods provided to the Customer by the ice manufacturing company for the purpose of ice manufacturing and selling, and failed to comply with the obligation to report to the Plaintiff, and thereby, nine freezings were lost. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered losses from the manufacturing company’s confiscation of freezing goods and the deposit money.
As the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 45,000,000, which is a part of the said damages, and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant, as an intermediate distribution merchant who is not the Plaintiff’s business employees, has been supplied with ices from the Plaintiff and sold them to his customer under his responsibility.
In addition, since the plaintiff is aware of his customer's identity, there is no matter that the defendant should especially take over, and the obligation to return freezing is borne by the customer who has used freezing that is not the defendant.