Plaintiff

Defendant

June 10, 2009

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2007Kadan5226 Decided June 13, 2008

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 13,797,348 won with 5% interest per annum from September 29, 2007 to July 1, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 3/5 of the total litigation costs is borne by the Plaintiff, and 2/5 by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 34,493,370 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of the right of indemnity;

1) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the Defendant’s embezzlement of KRW 20 million, among the money that the Defendant, who was an employee, received from the buyer while mediating a real estate sales contract, as the result of the Defendant’s liability for damages to the seller, who was the victim. Thus, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to indemnity against the Defendant, who

2) On this basis, the Defendant alleged that ① the real seller of real estate is Nonparty 2, not Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 3 concluded a sales contract as the agent of Nonparty 2, and ② the documents related to the registration were issued between Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, and the sales price was paid in full, and thus, embezzlement of KRW 20 million was not made. However, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is insufficient to acknowledge it only with the entries of Nos. 5 and 6 (including the serial number) and the testimony of Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 5 of the trial witness of the Party, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3) Furthermore, in the event that the Defendant was well aware of the process of the lawsuit, such as having been present as a witness in the case of Nonparty 2 and the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive in this Court No. 2004Gaso473, and the Plaintiff lost the Plaintiff by admitting the Defendant’s employer’s liability under the premise that the Plaintiff is an employer, as in the instant case, the Defendant incurred liability for reimbursement against the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant should have proven that the Plaintiff was not actively responsible by the means of participating as the Intervenor in the previous lawsuit, etc., but there is no

(b) Scope of the right of indemnity;

1) An employer may claim compensation for damages against an employee only within the extent deemed reasonable under the good faith principle in light of the nature and scale of the business, status of the facility, details of the employee's duties, working conditions and attitude of duty, causes and characteristics of the harmful act, degree of employer's consideration as to the prevention of harmful act or the distribution of losses, and other circumstances, and exercise the right to claim compensation for damages against the employee only within the extent that

2) On the premise of the above legal principles, there is no dispute over the ratio of negligence between the parties and brokers, Gap 23, 24, Eul 7 through 10, 13, and 14 (including the number). The following circumstances are as follows: ① The place of business where the plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name of "○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent's Office" is the real estate owned by the plaintiff, and the party who paid the above real estate rent or sub-paid it to the third party, and the defendant did not have a real estate agent qualification certificate, and the defendant did not have a real estate agent's business operation at least 00,000,000 won for the above real estate by providing the plaintiff with certain benefits, and the plaintiff did not have any duty to cooperate with the defendant's association within the scope of 10,000,000 won and 20,000 won, and the plaintiff did not have any duty to cooperate with the defendant's non-party 1's indemnity agreement.

C. Sub-decision

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 13,797,348 won for indemnity and the next day after the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the plaintiff, and to pay 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from September 29, 2007 to July 1, 2009, which is the date of the decision of the court of a considerable amount of trial to the date of full payment, and 20% per annum as provided by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is partially accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Go Young-gu (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Supreme Court Decision 95Da52611 delivered on April 9, 1996, etc.