logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.10.21 2019나5843
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. As between January 2016 and July 2017, the Defendant paid on behalf of the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 99,000 (the portion without the Defendant’s signature) equivalent to KRW 99,00 in C’s gas station located in C from January 2016 to July 2017, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 99,000.

B. The Defendant, who entered the Plaintiff Company, was employed as a technician for the search of the Plaintiff Company, and only he was involved in the Plaintiff Company’s business, such as a business trip at the construction site, or left the Defendant’s car according to the Plaintiff Company’s instructions (in the oil station designated by the Plaintiff to be provided for commuting, the oil was provided for commuting).

The plaintiff is not a substitute for the defendant's oil payment obligation, but a substitute for the plaintiff's obligation.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the witness E’s testimony and the entire argument of the first instance court and the trial, namely, the Plaintiff’s employees, including the Defendant, were paid a considerable amount of money at D gas stations for a long time, and the Plaintiff’s employees did not distinguish between whether the Plaintiff’s employees submitted credit ticket to D gas stations in the event of gas stations, and whether the Plaintiff continued to pay all of the gas stations to D gas stations without distinguishing the Plaintiff’s employees signed on the books kept in the aforementioned gas stations. In light of the fact that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have paid the Defendant’s oil payment obligation by subrogation, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow