beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The status of the party is that the plaintiff is the manager of Goyang-gu apartment B (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment of this case") in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu. The defendant is employed by the plaintiff and worked as the manager of the apartment of this case.
B. The Defendant’s tort or default liability (1) received money and valuables from the Consultation Committee (which appears to have been a commission to gather opinions from residents in the process of formulating a support project plan under Article 7 of the above Act; hereinafter “Songju Law Committee”) composed of the apartment of this case pursuant to the Act on the Compensation and Support for the Areas adjacent to Transmission Facilities, and (2) has undermined the Plaintiff’s honor by participating in posting illegal inducements, and (3) has not undermined the transfer of business to C, and (4) has committed an illegal act, such as occupational breach of trust during the process of selecting D apartment managers, or has the duty to faithfully work under the employment contract with the Plaintiff, but has failed to perform the above act.
C. The Defendant claiming an explicit partial payment of KRW 3,00,000,000 as part of active damages, such as defamation of the Plaintiff due to the aforementioned tort or nonperformance liability, and KRW 17,000,100, which is part of the management revenue for the period of 48 months with respect to D which the Plaintiff did not incur (negative damages) and damages for delay.
2. Determination ① According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the defendant is found to have received KRW 200,00 from the side of the consignor’s law committee around May 28, 2015, but the defendant decided to pay KRW 50,00 per time to the members of the consignor’s law committee at around March 23, 2015, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the respective descriptions in No. 5 and No. 8 and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the consignor’s committee at the consignor’s law committee at the meeting, and the defendant appears to have attended four times as a member of the consignor’s law committee at the meeting.