beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a travel contract with (Representative B) A (Representative B) around March 2016 for the overseas training of 220 executives and employees, and the Defendant, who entered into a travel with (Representative B) A, took place with the Plaintiff’s executives and employees on March 10, 2016, continued to travel with the Plaintiff’s employees and employees on March 10, 2016, and began to travel with the Plaintiff’s employees and employees on March 10, 201
3. On November, 11, a local tourr C director D, who entered into an exclusive contract with the Defendant, received the said money by paying USD 8,000, Thailand 14,000 as compensation for losses, for the additional option cost required by D, under the fear that local tourr D could not return to a hotel without the cooperation of the local tourr, or would not return to a hotel if a certain period of time is suspended. Such tort committed by D is impossible without the direction of the Defendant E branch manager F and the local tourr representative G at the local tourr.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 756(1) of the Civil Act, the Defendant, the employer of the above person, is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages ($ 8,000, US$144,000) and USD 5,000,000, which was purchased at gift, and also is liable for compensating for damages to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Defendant, the Defendant, the employer of the above person, is liable for compensating for damages to KRW 100,000,00,000, due to the Plaintiff’s external honor trend due to the tort committed by the employee, and due to the decline of business ability due to the psychological decline of the officers and employees who have engaged in travel, and accordingly, is liable
2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the director D of Thailand travel company passes out of the Plaintiff’s officers and employees, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on this premise needs to be examined further.