beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the written evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff engaged in alcoholic beverage distribution business as a member of the business on September 17, 2014, and that the Plaintiff engaged in the business of alcoholic beverage distribution business “the fact that the Plaintiff was liable for the outstanding amount at the time of the occurrence of the outstanding amount in the transaction place, deducted from the Defendant’s annual salary, or paid by the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant”), and that the Defendant was engaged in the business of delivering alcoholic beverages to the transaction partner upon obtaining the Plaintiff’s approval by influence of the transaction partner from around that time to July 2015.
2. As alleged in the ground of appeal and determination, the Plaintiff seeks to pay the Defendant the sum of the outstanding amount from the customer in charge of the Defendant and the outstanding amount, totaling KRW 32,055,142, as compensation for damages under the contract of this case.
However, since the contract of this case is a kind of employment contract that the defendant is responsible for identifying and managing the customer according to the plaintiff's direction and order and for receiving a certain amount of remuneration from the plaintiff, it cannot be interpreted that the defendant is liable for the total amount of the outstanding amount in the same position as the guarantor of the customer, and it shall be interpreted that the defendant is liable for the liability to compensate to the extent that it is deemed reasonable in light of the degree of remuneration that the defendant receives, degree of negligence, etc. in the event the defendant fails to recover the outstanding amount in violation of his duty of care in the course of his duties.
However, in this case, the defendant individually held that the defendant is liable to guarantee the attempted transaction amount.
Inasmuch as there are no circumstances such as failure to recover the outstanding amount due to intention or negligence, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant is liable for damages equivalent to the outstanding amount.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .