1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The plaintiff filed a claim for damages based on the tort and the conjunctive non-performance note (Evidence A No. 4) where the defendant primarily embezzled the sale proceeds or goods.

The judgment of the first instance dismissed the primary claim and partly accepted the conjunctive claim.

Since only the defendant appealed, the scope of the trial of the party shall be limited to the preliminary claim.

2. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the following changes, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The amended portion 3 pages 1 of the “10 January 10, 2016” is changed to “10 January 10, 2017 (No. 4, “10 January 10, 2016,” respectively).

5. The following modifications shall be made to the parallel 4 to 13:

Where an employer has suffered direct loss due to a tort committed by an employer in relation to the performance of his/her duties or a loss to a third party who is the victim, the employer may claim compensation for damages or exercise the right to indemnity against an employee only to the extent deemed reasonable under the good faith principle in light of the nature and scale of his/her business, status of facilities, the details of his/her duties and working conditions, attitude of his/her employee, causes and nature of the harmful act, the degree of consideration of the employer as to the prevention of harmful act or the distribution of losses, and other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da59350, Nov. 26, 2009). The store of this case has a difference between the amount of the daily sales slip and the SOS (Evidence No. 2) before the Defendant had worked, and the store of this case is paid for the virtual sales (the demand for inventory of personal goods or the head office, etc.) and sales of goods in an account book, etc.