beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 35,838,868 and its payment from December 22, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff traded with the Defendant through D, an employee of the Defendant’s livestock distribution business division, from January 21, 2015 to September 11, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant land transaction”). B.
As of September 11, 2015, the outstanding amount of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is KRW 35,838,868 (hereinafter “the outstanding amount”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 9 (including each number), witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of KRW 35,838,868, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 22, 2015 to the day of complete payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
B. The defendant's defense 1) without prior approval or permission of the representative director of the defendant or after-report to the representative director of the defendant, the defendant's defense D sold the land purchased at a high price from another company at a low price from the plaintiff to the plaintiff or sold the goods purchased at a high price from the plaintiff to the other company at a low price. The loss transaction of D constitutes an act of breach of trust as an agent, and the plaintiff either conspired with D or knew or could have known it at least, so the transaction of this case is null and void. 2) If the plaintiff knew or could have known that the agent's actual intention was a breach of trust for his own or a third party's interest against his own interest or will, the agent's act under an analogical interpretation of the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act is the principal.