logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2015.06.11 2014가합2668
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from October 17, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From October 2002, the Plaintiff designated a medium-sized seller of another fisheries cooperative (hereinafter “cooperative”) as a designated intermediary wholesaler for the Plaintiff’s F purchasing by proxy in order to generate profits and promote its members’ income, the Plaintiff’s Franing business ‘F business’ was implemented by purchasing the F from them, and supplying them to large-scale nationwide stores or meal service companies. From around 2010, the Plaintiff designated the KIM as the Plaintiff’s meal service business office and operated the so-called “the so-called group meal service business that supplies group meal goods, etc. to school meal service companies by means of a special contract recruited and managed by the KG in 2010.

B. On December 9, 1996, H entered into the J fishing village fraternity as a 4th class driver of the technology field, which was located in Dong Young-si on December 9, 1996, and on November 19, 2001, the said fishing village fraternity was affiliated with the distribution and sale division, and was engaged in the purchase and sale of F, etc. On March 11, 201, the head of the second class distribution and sale division was specially promoted as of March 11, 201, taking charge of the Plaintiff’s distribution and sale business, such as “Fing business and group meal service business.” (2) The Defendants were appointed as the Plaintiff’s standing director on July 1, 200, and were in charge of the Plaintiff’s distribution and sale business, including “the Plaintiff’s 10th class distribution and sale division” and “the Plaintiff’s officers are jointly and severally responsible for the management of the Plaintiff’s business, and the Plaintiff’s 10th class distribution and sale division was in violation of the Plaintiff’s duty.

arrow