beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts are acknowledged by the Plaintiff: (a) the head of the branch office of the KRB Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”); and (b) the Defendant served as D of the instant company; and (c) the Plaintiff paid the Switzerland amounting to KRW 10 million to E in order to receive E at the end of July 2013, if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion was made by the defendant around August 2013, that he had already decided to work at the bottom of the plaintiff, and Eul had an interview at the head office to work at the branch office of the defendant under the defendant's below. However, in the process, E could not work at the company of this case with the plaintiff when it was revealed that it failed to meet the requirements such as credit rating, collateral condition, etc. necessary to work at the company of this case. Accordingly, since the defendant's tort caused damage of KRW 10 million to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff 10 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.
B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant was found to have intended to employ E as a branch office without knowledge of the Plaintiff, and E was unable to work as a unit below the Plaintiff.
Even if the defendant is not a direct party to the agreement related to employment between the plaintiff and E, such circumstance alone alone makes it difficult to see that the defendant's act constitutes a tort in relation to the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that there is a proximate causal relation between the defendant's act seeking to employ E as a branch office and the result making E unable to work as a unit below the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiff's assertion is without need to further examine.