logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.03 2014가단5097212
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a service agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) as follows.

1) A service contract for the establishment of a residential environment management project in the D Village in Si-Gu, Si-si (hereinafter “D service contract”).

- - The Plaintiff and the contractor: C - the name of the contractor: the planning of the residential environment management project in the area of the City: the contract amount: 25,000,000 won (including value-added tax): the contract period: October 23, 2013 to August 18, 2014 - the payment of KRW 12,50,000 out of the service price shall be made in advance and the remainder shall be paid in 12,50,000 within seven days after the completion of the work (hereinafter referred to as “E district service contract”): the Plaintiff and the contractor - the name of the contractor: the contract amount - the planning of the customized maintenance project in the area of the E area - the contract amount: 19,00,000 won (including value-added tax) - the payment of the service amount of KRW 12,50,000 from November 12, 2013 to 00,700,000.

B. On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 9,500,000 in advance of the E-district service contract to the National Bank account of C.

C. On January 27, 2014, February 26, 2014, and March 26, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 2,425,590 (total KRW 7,276,770) to the Defendant’s national bank account.

(d) On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff notified C of the termination of the above service contract on the grounds that C did not perform the tasks under the E-area service contract. [In the absence of dispute over recognition, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff that the above service contract was terminated, as the Plaintiff did not perform the tasks under the E-area service contract. The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the above service contract. [The Plaintiff’s each of the entries in the evidence No. 3, No. 4, No. 12-1 through No. 5, No. 12-1, No. 5, and No. 1, No. 12-5, and No.

2. Determination

A. On November 15, 2013, the Defendant concluded a labor contract with the Plaintiff.

The defendant, who is the plaintiff's employee, was appointed as C's internal director thereafter.

The defendant violates the duty of loyalty to the employer and has the plaintiff.

arrow