beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff as an investment company for the establishment of small and medium enterprises is mainly engaged in business start-up investment and management consulting business, and the Defendant served as the Plaintiff’s managing director from August 1, 2006 to May 8, 2013.
B. From January 2008 to August 2008, the Defendant entered into a consulting service agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “C”) and provided management consulting services for a mutually unsound company, and received KRW 190,000,000 at service cost.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 9, the inquiry result of Eul, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above amount of damages, since the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages, since he violated the duty to hold concurrent offices under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Employment Regulations, Article 2 (3) of the Employment Regulations, Article 9 of the Employment Regulations, and Article 9 of the Labor Contract and suffered passive damages which caused the plaintiff to lose the profit that he could have been able to enter into a service contract.
B. The facts that the defendant performed C's service, separate from the plaintiff's work, while serving as the plaintiff's executive director, are recognized as above. Whether the defendant's above service performance constitutes a violation of the duty to hold concurrent office should be determined as to whether the defendant's work constitutes the plaintiff's worker, whether the service duty performed by the defendant is included in the plaintiff's business scope, and the meaning and scope of the provisions on the prohibition of concurrent office. Even if the defendant's breach of duty is recognized, in order to recognize the defendant's responsibility, the causation between the plaintiff's loss and the above loss and the defendant's violation of duty should be recognized. For this purpose, the service contract was concluded with