beta
Text
1. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's appeal and the defendant-Counterclaim claim filed in the trial are all dismissed.
2.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this part of the claim is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the deletion of the first instance court's 3th to 12th to 15th, the fourth to 17th, and the fourth to 17th, so this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on a counterclaim
A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) After the instant business consultation was non-existent, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to operate C as a partnership business, and the Plaintiff performed the duties of the head of C’s headquarters. 2) C exported used cars to the Philippines on February 26, 2013 and to Chile on May 28, 2013. In the process, the Plaintiff was in charge of shipping duties as the head of C’s headquarters.
3. However, although the Plaintiff loaded used cars without confirming whether the chassis number of used cars exported to Chile coincide with the export face value, and the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff to deliver the bill of lading to Chile F, the Plaintiff issued a bill of lading to F.
As the chassis number of the loaded used cars is inconsistent with the export face value, used cars were stolen, while used cars were left unattended at a wharf for 30 days, which is not cleared at the Chile Customs, and the F claimed that the use fee of a wharf for 30 days and the penalty caused by the failure to transfer used cars to the consumer of Chile was paid to the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not pay KRW 70 million out of the used cars purchase price. This was caused by the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of care or tort, which did not verify whether the chassis number and the export face of the loaded used cars coincide with the chassis number and the export face of the loaded used cars.
Furthermore, in the event that a bill of lading was received and the bill of lading was issued, the defendant would have been given an opportunity to settle the case, but the plaintiff did not receive the automobile sale price, and the bill of lading was delivered to F.