1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the sum of claims on the grounds of appeal is KRW 3,37,862 (i.e., KRW 160,00, KRW 2897,862, KRW 280,000). The claim amount in the grounds of appeal differs from the claim amount in the purport of appeal; and (b) the argument itself is arranged as stated in the grounds

In 209, while the Defendant was operating the Plaintiff’s 2 Poter B 2 Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), it was falsely reported that the Defendant left the engine engine due to the failure to inspect the engine engine errors. The Plaintiff was aware that the engine in question was completed, and the Plaintiff was operating the instant vehicle with the knowledge that the engine in question was completed, and the occurrence of an accident involving the engine failure.

As a result, the Plaintiff caused damage to 160,00 won and 2,897,862 won for towing costs of the instant vehicle, and sought objection against the Defendant.

B. The defendant violated the plaintiff's duty order prohibiting the delivery from a specific company, and then unilaterally expressed his intention of withdrawal without prior notice, and thus, the contact was terminated. Accordingly, the defendant shall compensate for the 280,000 won for the personnel expenses incurred by the plaintiff as an agent.

2. Determination

A. On February 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) entered the Plaintiff Company and was in charge of the operation and supply of vehicles; (b) on April 9, 2016, the Defendant only repaired air conditioners of the instant vehicle and did not separately check engine engines; (c) on May 3, 2016, the Defendant expressed a resignation to the representative of the Plaintiff Company; and (d) on May 10, 2016, the instant vehicle was towed and inspected by the Defendant into the 1st class North Korean Motor Vehicle Industry on May 17, 2016 due to the lack of engine engines; (b) the fact that the engine was suspended due to the shortage of engine engines, or the fact that the Plaintiff was liable to manage the instant engine solely on the basis of the fact that there was no dispute between the parties, or the fact that the Plaintiff was in charge of managing the engine.