beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is a company that imports automobile repair products and chemical drugs from C with its head office in Germany and sells them separately, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the business as the head of the Otop Team (automobile-related products) in the Ulsan-do government from May 2005 to December 2017.
B. The Defendant used a method of direct sale to the customer and did not conduct online transactions, but became aware that online transactions have been conducted at a low price since 2015, and investigated the online sales process.
C. In order to promote sales, the Defendant issued additional products with sampling or free of charge to the customer (hereinafter “additional products”) and confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff did not provide additional products to the customer during the online transaction investigation process and sold them to the customer and personally useful facts.
On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff, along with the Defendant’s employees, confirmed the quantity of additional documentary evidence used in 2016 and 2017, divided into those actually provided to the purchasing enterprise and those not so. On December 13, 2017, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant each end of 20,414,502 won in total, 60,414,502 won in 2016 and 70,109,384 won in total, converted into the amount of the above details of use on December 13, 2017.
(hereinafter “each list of this case”). E.
The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of damages amounting to KRW 130,523,886 (=60,414,502 Won 70,109,384), which was the Suwon District Court Decision 2017Ra618, Jun. 2, 2017, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of damages amounting to KRW 130,523,886 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On December 22, 2017, the said court issued a payment order to pay the said KRW 130,523,886 and interest interest thereon (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the said payment order on December 28, 2017.