2016 Doz. 105351 Compensation, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

1. H area housing association;

2. I

3. J Company;

4. K Co., Ltd.

5. L.

6. M.

7. N;

June 27, 2017

August 17, 2017

1. Defendant I, K, L, M, and N jointly pay to the Plaintiff A, C, D, E, and F 59,90,000 won each, the amount of KRW 54,00,000 to the Plaintiff B, the amount of KRW 49,00,000 to the Plaintiff G, and each of them, the amount of KRW 49,00,000 to the Plaintiff G from July 7, 2016, and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from July 19, 2016 to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' respective claims against defendant H Area Housing Association and J Company and the plaintiffs' remaining claims against defendant I, K, L, M, and N are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant H District Housing Association and the J Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant I, K, L, M and N shall be borne by the above defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The order of Paragraph 1 of this case and the defendant H District Housing Association, and J Co., Ltd. jointly with the remaining Defendants shall pay to the plaintiff A, D, E, and F 59,90,000 won, the plaintiff B 54,00,000 won, and the plaintiff G 49,00,000 won per annum from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. The defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff C 60,795,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiffs are those who purchase the apartment of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”). Defendant H District Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”) is the regional housing association under the Housing Act established to carry out the new construction and sale of the apartment of this case, Defendant I is the president of the Defendant Union, and Defendant J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “J”) is the construction of the apartment of this case. Defendant K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant K”) is a company conducting the construction of the apartment of this case except where the former trade name is required to be indicated in P Co., Ltd. before December 9, 2014) as a company conducting the business of constructing the apartment of this case and conducting its duties on its behalf based on the agency contract for recruiting members with the Defendant Union. Defendant L is the actual operator of Defendant K, Defendant M and N were the direct members of Defendant K (hereinafter referred to as “L when referring to both L, M and N”).

(b) Performance of proxy services by Defendant K following the conclusion of a contract for soliciting cooperative members;

1) From January 2010, the Defendant Association concluded a cooperative recruitment contract with Q, Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., R, Defendant K, and Galim Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) running by Defendant L (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), and entered into the relevant agency contract with Defendant K on December 18, 2014, and the main contents of the agency contract with Defendant K are as follows (hereinafter “instant agency contract”). Meanwhile, the agency contract with the Galim Construction is identical to the instant agency contract, except where the agency fee increases to KRW 45 million, and the size and deadline of the cooperative recruitment were different.

조합원 모집 대행 계약서*물건의 표시사업명H지역주택조합 아파트 신축 사업주소서울 영등포구 S 일대모집규모공동주택 162세대 중 30세대상기 분양목적물의 조합원 모집 대행용역 업무(2차 조합원 모집)를 함에 있어 본계약의 시행사인 H지역주택조합(이하‘‘갑’’이라 한다)과 조합원 모집 대행사인 주식회사 K(이하 "을" 이라 한다)은 아래와 같이 조합원 모집 대행계약을 체결하며, 이를 증명하기 위하여 본 계 약서 2부를 작성하여 상호 서명 날인한 후 각각 1 부씩 보관키로 한다.제2조 (조합원 모집 대행 업무의 범위)1. ‘‘갑"이 "을"로 하여긍 수행토록 하는 업무의 범위는 목적물의 조합원 모집 업무를 수행 하는 제반적인 업무대행으로써 다움 각 호의 업무에 한한다.1) 조합원 모집 영업 전략의 수립 및 집행2) 조합원 모집 활성화를 위한 기획3) 영업인원의 투입 및 관리4) 제반 조합원 모집 업무 상담5) 기타 계약알선, 조합원 모집에 관련하여 상호 협의에 의한 대행 업무2. 조합원 가입 계약서 작성 및 수금은 "갑" 또는 "갑’’이 지정하는 직원만이 처리하며, "을"은 "갑"의 요청이 있을 시 업무를 보조하고 조합원 모집 계약과 관련된 사항은 반드시 "갑"과 사전협의하고 진행하여야 한다.제3조 (조합원 모집 대행기간 및 목표)1. 조합원 모집 개시는 계약일로부터 유효하다.2. 2015년 3월 31일 까지 조합원 자격조건에 적법한 자로 30명( 조합설립 변경인가기준)을 모집하기로 한다.3. 2015년 1월 31일 까지 10명, 2월 28일 까지 10명, 3월31일까지 1 0명씩 월10명씩 모집하여 총 30명의 조합원 자격조건에 적합한 자로 모집한다.제4조 (조합원 모집 대행수수료 및 지급방법)1. 조합원 모집 대행수수료(광고비, 운영에 필요한 모든 비용 포항)는 세대당 일금 이천만원정(\20,000,000, VAT 별도)으로 한다.2. 기존 명의자에서 조합원으로 변경시는 세대당 일금 일천오백만원정(\15,000,000, VAT 별도)으로 한다.3. 모집대행수수료는 아래와 같이 지급한다.1) 대행수수료의 지금은 조합원 분담금의 계약금과 업무추진비 [(84.9㎡의 경우 일금 칠천칠백구십만원정(\77,900,000))]을 입금하고 중도금태출 승계한 후 조합원 자격 서류를 제출하여 이상 없을 시 일금 일천오백만원정(\15,000,000, VAT 볕도)을 지급하며, 일금 오백만원정(\5,000,000, VAT 별도)은 조합원 변경 원인에 의한 조합설립 변경인가 완료 후 지급한다.2) 기존 명의자에서 조합원으로 변경시 대행수수료의 지급은 조합원 분담금의 계약금과 업무추진비 [(84.9㎡의 경우 일금 칠천칠백구십만원정(\77,900,000))]을 입금하고 중도금 대출 승계한 후 조합원 자격 서류를 제출하여 이상 없을 시 잃금 일천만원정 (\10,000,000, VAT 별도)을 지급하며, 일금 오백만원정(\5,000,000, VAT별도)은 조합원 변경 원인에 의한 조합설립 변경인가 완료 후 지급한다.3) 대행수수료 지급시기는 "을"의 청구일로부터 7일 이내에 지급한다.제5조 (제반비용)1. "갑"과 "을"은 아래와 같이 제반비용에 대한 역할을 분담하기로 한다.1) "갑"의 비용부담홍보관이용, 전단지 및 카탈로그제7조 (분담금 납입 및 업무 추진 방법)1. 분담금 및 업무추진바는 대한토지신탁 계좌(T/KB) 에 납입한 금액만 인정한다.2. "갑" 과 "을"은 상호간의 신의와 성실로 계약 내용을 준수하고 "을"은 "갑"의 업무지시를 성실히 이행하여야 하며, 필요시 업무내용을 ‘‘갑"이 지정하는 양식에 의하여 서면으로 제출하여야 한다.제8조 (조합원 모집 업무 관리 및 책임한계)1. "을"은 본 계약서에서 정한 "을"의 업무범위를 벗어난 행위를 할 수 없으며, 이에 위반 하여 업무수행에 지장을 초래할 경우 "갑"은 즉시 시정할 것을 지시할 수 있으며, 이 경우 "을"의 부담과 책임으로 시정 조치하여야 한다.제12조 (특약사항)2. 제3조 2항에 의거하여 2015 년 3 월 31일 까지 조합원 30세태에 태하여 모집을 완료하여 조 합설립 변경인가가 완료되면 추가 수수료(인센티브)로 일금 오천만원정(\50,000,000,VAT 포함)을 지급하며 그 지급시기는 조합설립변경인가일 이후 7일 이내로 한다.5. 본계약 제3조(조합원 모집 대행기간 및 목표) 제2항의 기간을 2015 년 6 월 30 일 까지 유 지하기로 한다. 단) 연장기간에 대하여서는 제12 조(특약 사항) 제2항을 적용치 아니한다. - 2015년 6월 10일 계약자 쌍방 합의 후 삽입

2) According to the instant agency contract, Defendant K performed the business of recruiting members of the Defendant K in the O publicity center located near the instant apartment site in U. 11 and 112. Meanwhile, the said 111 was the principal office under the rules of the Defendant K association, and in fact the Defendant K used the said promotion center as the office until October 28, 2013, and Defendant J visited the said promotion center at several times.

Defendant Association and J’s respective names, and W’s apartment brand, together with the Plaintiffs, sent to the customers who visited the above promotion center, including the Plaintiffs. Defendant M and N were in charge of consultation and conclusion of contracts with the customers, and Defendant L directed and supervised the performance of their duties.

C. Conclusion and content of each provisional contract between the plaintiffs and defendant K

After consultation with Defendant M, N, etc. for sale, the Plaintiffs entered into a provisional contract with Defendant K to purchase one unit of each apartment unit of 33 square meters of apartment units of this case (hereinafter “instant provisional contract”), and the main contents thereof are as follows.

원고계약의 주요내용공통사항총분양금액 : 599,000,000원 계약금 : 77,900,000원가계약 약정내용O 본 가계약서는 분양(정)계약전에는 분양계약서와 동일한 효력을 가지며, 계약예정일에 분양계약서로 대체키로 한다.O 본 가계약 체결시 납부한 가계약금은 정계약시 계약금의 일부로 전환되는 공통사항 것으로 한다.O 분양계약 체결 후 본 가계약의 효력은 자동으로 소멸되며, 제반 권리의무는 분양계약서에 규정한 바에 따른다.공급자 "갑"H지역주택조합(다만 원고 B, G의 가계약서에는 피고 조합의 명칭이 기재되어 있지 않다)(분양)대행사 : (주) PA가계약 체결일 : 2014. 9. 14.계약 약정일 : 2014. 9.가계약금 : 5,000,000원 약정내용4. "갑"은 ”을(각 원고들을 말한다. 이하 같다)”에게 분양가 할인적용이 될 시 충분양대금 10% 할인금액에 대해 중도금 8차시(11월 중) 환급하여 주도록 한다.(수기 기재) * 2015년 3월 이전에 매매가 안될 시 전부 7,740만 원 환불된다B가계약 체결일 : 2015. 2. 22.계약 약정일 : 2014. 2. 26.가계약금 : 3,000,000원 약정내용4. "갑"은 ”을"에 분양가 할인 적용이 될 시 총분양대금 중 일금 54,000,000원 에 태한 할인금액을 잔금처리시 적용하토록 한다.(수기 기재) ＊ 할인 금액 변동발생 시 가계약금은 전액 반환토록 한다(103 동)* 가계약서는 정계약서의 별침으로 한다.C가계약 체결일 : 2014. 11. 8.계약 약정일 : 2014. 12.가계약금 : 5,000,000원 약정내용4. "갑"은 ”을"에게 분양가 할인적용이 될 시 총분양태금 10% 할인금액에 대해 중도금 3월 환급하여 주도록 한다.D가계약 체결일 : 2014. 11. 1.계약 약정일 : 2014. 11. 25.가계약금 : 5,000,000원 약정내용4. "갑"은 ”을"에게 분양가 할인적용이 될 시 총분양태금 10% 할인금액에 대해 중도금 8차시(1 1월 중) 환급하여 주도록 한다.E가계약 체결일 : 2014. 10. 20.계약 약정일 : 2014. 11. 30.가계약금 : 30,000,000원 약정내용4. "갑"은 ”을"에게 분양가 할인적용이 될 시 총분양대금 10% 할인금액에 대해 2015년 3월중 환급하여 주도록 한다.F계가계약 체결일 : 2014. 9. 21.계약 약정일 : 2014.가계약금 : 5,000,000원 약정내용6. "갑"은 ”을"에게 분양가 할인이 적용될 시 충분양대금의 10%를 2015년 3월 중 환급하여 주도록 한다.(단 ”을"이 2014년 11월 30일까지 일금 (47,900,000원)을 입금시 적용됨)G가계약 체결일 : 2015. 2. 24.계약 약정일 : 2015. 3. 13.가계약금 : 1차계약금 10,000,000, 2차계약금 20,000,000약정내용4. "갑"은 ”을"에 분양가 할인 적용이 될 시 총분양대금 중 일금 49,000,000원을 잔금처리시 할인 적용하도록 한다.

D. Conclusion of principal contracts and payment of contributions by Plaintiffs, Defendant Cooperatives, etc.

1. After entering into the instant provisional contract, the Plaintiffs entered into the agreement with the Defendant Union, J, Sungdi Co., Ltd. and the Defendant Union and the Defendant Association agent agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”). The said agreement was concluded in the form that the Plaintiffs received the change of names (the succession of rights and obligations) from the existing members of the Defendant Union. The main content of the instant contract, the date of the succession of the status of each Plaintiff and the other party are as follows.

H지역 주택조합 조합가입 및 조합업무대행 계약서시행사 : H지역주택조합 (이하 甲이라 한다)조합원 : H지역주택조합 가입자(이하 乙이라 한다) 시행대행사 : 제성디앤씨(주) (이하 丙이라 한다) 시공사 : J (주) (이하 시공사라 한다)제1조[총칙]을은 주택법 제32조, 동법 시행령 37조 및 동법 시행규칙 17조에 규정한 주택조합원 자격자로서 사업승인의 미확정 상태에서 본 사업을 추진해야 하므로 이에 대한 관계 업무일체를 병에게 위일하여 사업시행을 대행하게 하고 그 보수로서 업무추진비를 병에게 지급하며 갑은 공사도급계약 및 사업일정에 따라 조합원 분담금 및 업무추진비를 완납한 세대에게 사업승인 면적(단, 인·허가시 증감이 있을 수 있음)에 의하여 아파트 1세대를 을에게 공급한다.제4조[조합원의 분담금]을은 다음과 같이 분담금을 부담한다.주택형분담금 총액(단위: 원)분담금업무추진비84㎡\579,000,000~\20,000,000~2) 분담금 및 업무추진비는 아래 계좌에 조합원이 개별로 각각 납입하여 대한토지신탁(주)가 관리함을 원칙으로 하고 아래 계좌 이외에 입금된 조합원의 분담금 및 업무추진비는 어떠한 경우라도 인정하지 않는다.분담금 및 업무추진비 납입계좌 : 국민은행 T 예금주 대한토지신탁(주)제5조[연체료 및 할인료]1) 을이 분담금을 연체한 경우에 연체일수에 대해 연 17%의 연체료를 부담키로 한다.(연체료 이자율은 시중금리에 따라 변동될 수 있다)제7조[업무추진비의 부담]2) 을은 조합의 원활한 업무추진을 위하여 병에게 업무추진비를 제4조의 지정계좌로 납부 한다.[명의변경(권리의무 승계)]AX2014. 10. 22.BY2015. 2. 26.BZ2014. 11. 13.DAA(기재 없음)EAB2014. 11. 11.FAC2014. 10. 27.GAD2015. 3. 13.

2) On October 2015, the day after the conclusion of the instant principal contract and the completion of the instant apartment, the Plaintiffs agreed to pay only the remainder of the charges, excluding the discounted purchase price, as they agreed to the Defendant Union, but the Defendant Union notified the Defendant Union of the fact that it was unaware of the discounted purchase price and did not pay the charges within the time limit. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs paid the full amount of the charges stipulated in the instant principal contract to the Defendant Union.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entry in Gap's 1 through 6, 9-1, 10 through 14-1, 15, 18 through 20, Eul's evidence 1 through 6, Eul's evidence 2 (including each number as long as it is not specified; hereinafter the same shall apply), defendant I, and the result of each personal examination of M, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

(a)Plaintiffs;

1) In the first place, Defendant L et al. committed an unlawful act that did not comply with the promise after having made a false statement that Defendant L et al. would give a discount to the purchase price at the office of the Defendant Union as if they were the employees of the Defendant Union or the J., and committed an unlawful act that did not comply with the said promise. The Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim as compensation for joint tort or employer liability to the Plaintiffs.

2) Preliminaryly against the Defendant Union, even if tort liability was not established, Defendant K entered into a discount sale agreement with the Plaintiffs on behalf of the Defendant Union, and the Defendant Union is obligated to pay the money claimed to the Plaintiffs as a contractual performance liability based on the legal doctrine of trade employees, who have an expression agency or partial comprehensive power of attorney.

B. Defendant Union, L, and J

① Defendant K is merely a member recruitment agent and did not have the authority to conclude a sales contract, and Defendant K and L did not know at all about the instant provisional contract that Defendant K and L entered into with the Plaintiffs, and were neither their users.

② Even if the conclusion of the provisional contract is recognized, it is not revealed that a discount was made on the sales price in the provisional contract, and the Defendants are not the parties to the provisional contract, and thus the validity of the provisional contract is lost as the provisional contract was already concluded and thus, the Plaintiffs cannot assert the content of the provisional contract, and there is no difference between the facts that the principal contract of this case was concluded with Plaintiff E.

③ Therefore, the tort or contractual performance liability of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is not established.

C. Defendant K, L

Defendant L did not carry out the instant provisional contract as a member of the Defendant Cooperative or J, and did not directly conclude the instant provisional contract by face-to-face meeting the Plaintiffs. However, it merely notified Defendant M and N of the fact that the Defendant Cooperative had a past contribution to selling discount in the past and that it is anticipated to do so in the future. Therefore, there was no offer of the Plaintiffs’ undertaking to sell discount, which is obvious that the content of the provisional contract is based on the content of the provisional contract.

D. Defendant M

At the time of the conclusion of the instant provisional contract, the Defendant clearly expressed that he was an employee of the sales substitute, and did not engage in the execution of the Defendant’s association or the executives and employees of the J. Defendant K and the Defendant, who is merely an employee of the sales agency, could carry out the sales agency within the scope of the terms and conditions set forth by the Defendant’s association, but could not decide whether to sell at a discount. Therefore, there is no fact that the Plaintiffs mentioned the possibility of selling at a discount

E. Defendant N

Under the terms of the contract directed by Defendant K, L, and M, the Defendant was merely an employee in charge of B, E, G, and sales stores and concluding contracts, and did not have the right to make a decision on the discount sale, etc. on its own, and there was no fact that the Defendant was an employee or executive officer of the Defendant union

2. Judgment on the issue

A. Determination of the nature of tort liability

1) Defendant K, L, M, N

A) First of all, as to whether Defendant L, etc. promised to sell a discount to the Plaintiffs, the following facts or circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts as seen earlier and the facts set forth in subparagraph 1, and the overall purport of the arguments as to Defendant M&A, namely, the following facts or circumstances: ① Defendant N has consistently stated that there was a 5,7,10% discount among its members, and Defendant L and M may also have been mentioned in the said discount to its employees or customers; ② The specific discount rate or discount is set for each virtual contract prepared with Defendant K, and the amount of discount can be set differently for each Plaintiff, and ③ according to the letter of text message submitted by Defendant N&A, it appears that Defendant K would have been able to have been given a discount among its employees under the direction of Defendant K to sell the discount, and ③ The additional terms and conditions set forth in the terms and conditions set forth in the terms and conditions set forth in the letter of discount to the employees of this case, such as the terms and conditions set forth in the letter of discount to the employees of this case.

나) 나아가 피고 L 등이 위와 같이 할인분양을 확약할 당시 할인이 이루어지지 않을 것임을 알면서도 이를 숨겨 원고들을 기망하였는지에 대하여 살피건대, 앞서 본 증거들에 갑 제22호중의 기재, 피고 I, M 각 본인신문 결과 및 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사실 내지 사정들, 즉, ① 피고 L 등은 피고 조합 내지 I에게 앞서 본 바와 같은 할인분양의 확약이 이루어지고 있음을 알리지 않았던 것으로 보이는 점, ② 피고 K, L은 스스로 2014. 6.부터 2015. 6.까지 피고 조합, J과 분양할인에 대한 회의를 진행한 결과 2015. 6.부터 분양할인이 확정되었다고 주장하는 점, ③ 위와 같은 사정들에 의하면 피고 K, L 등은 할인분양 확약을 이행함에 있어 피고 조합의 협조나 도움을 받기는 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 그런데 피고 K은 피고 조합으로부터 조합원 모집에 성공할 경우 1인당 1,500만 원 내지 2,000만 윈의 대행수수료를 받을 뿐이어서 피고 조합이나 I의 협조가 없다면 원고들에게 위 대행 수수료를 현저히 초과하는 할인 분양대금을 지급할 수 있는 능력이 없었던 점, ⑤ 피고 K, L 등은 원고들과 이 사건 가계약 뿐만 아니라 본계약 체결업무까지 수행하였는바 사정이 고러하다면 위 피고들은 물론 피고 K, L은 이 사건 본계약서에는 할인분양 에 관한 기재내용이 전혀 촌재하지 않는다는 사실을 인지하고 있었다고 봄이 상당한 점, ⑥ 피고 M, N은 피고 K의 직원으로서 피고 K 또는 L의 지시에 따랐을 뿐이어서 원고들에 내한 기망의사가 없었다는 취지로 주장하나, 앞서 본 이 사건 본계약 체결 과정에서의 관여사실에다가 피고 M은 대행업무를 총괄하는 지위에 있었고 피고 K의 내표이사로 등기된 적도 있었으며 자신의 명의로 분양대금 반환에 관한 합의이행각서 등을 작성하기도 하는 등 피고 K의 대행업무에 깊이 관여하였고, 피고 N 역시 고객들을 직접 응대하며 할인분양을 약속하였을 뿐만 아니라 조합윈 모집에 성공할 경우 급여 이외에 추가적인 대가를 지급받았던 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면 피고 L 등은 공모하여 원고들을 기망하였음을 녁넉히 인정할 수 있다.

C) Therefore, Defendant L et al. is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the agreed price for the sale of discount, and Defendant K et al. is the employer of Defendant L et al., who is the employer of the above public tort.

2) Defendant I

In light of the above facts, the above defendants are obligated to provide accurate information about Gap's membership and apartment sale as the head of the association, and the above defendant's unlawful act against Eul was committed at the place specified by the defendant association's office, and the defendant's office showed that Eul had a considerable period of time in which the defendant's association and the defendant's office showed that Eul had been jointly engaged in the recruitment of the defendant association members by taking into account the overall purport of the arguments as a whole. ① The defendant association's non-corporate association's officers under the rules are likely to actually take charge of the business of the association, such as one head of the association, three or less directors, one auditor, etc. ② The defendant association's members acquired the membership of the defendant association and acquired the membership of the association in this case's apartment, and ③ the above illegal act against the plaintiffs such as defendant Eul was committed at least at the place specified by the defendant association's office, and the defendant Eul's office and the defendant Eul operated the above apartment association's office did not appear to have been unfairly related to the defendant association's unlawful act.

3) Defendant Union, J

A) First of all, Defendant I’s joint tort liability, a representative of Defendant I’s association, is recognized as above, but the Defendant Union cannot be held liable for tort or employer’s liability as joint tortfeasor, apart from the fact that the Defendant Union is liable for such liability pursuant to the analogical application of Article 35 of the Civil Act. Meanwhile, the fact that the Defendant Union entered into the instant agency contract with the Defendant K with the Defendant K, and the major contents of the said contract are as seen in the preceding facts, but it is insufficient to view that the Defendant Union committed joint tort with Defendant K and L, or that it was in the employer’s position against the said Defendants.

B) Next, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 17-1, Defendant J entered the office of Defendant J around the time when Defendant K and L, etc. act as a member of the Defendant J’s association, Defendant J’s officers and employees and 40 related persons entered the office of the Defendant J’s association, and Defendant J’s replacement of the aforementioned members of the JJ as a member of the Defendant J association, but the fact that Defendant J attempted to substitute them again after the replacement of the said members of the said J as a sex union, but the fact that the above fact was insufficient to recognize that Defendant J participated in the said Defendants’ tort or was an employer’s status.

B. Determination as to whether the defendant union is contractually responsible

On the other hand, as to whether Defendant K, an agent of the Defendant Union, is liable under the legal principles as to discount sale agreement with the Plaintiffs, as to whether or not it is liable for the contractual liability under the commercial employee’s representative or partial comprehensive power of representation, even if the validity of the above agreement extends to the Defendant Union, and even if so, it appears in the preceding facts, and it is common in the family medicine letter of this case prepared by the Plaintiffs with Defendant K, which is prepared by the Plaintiffs with Defendant K, the effect of this agreement, is automatically extinguished, and all rights and obligations are governed by the sales agreement." Meanwhile, all of the contract of this case prepared by the Plaintiffs with the Defendant Union, etc., are written with the sales price of KRW 590 million and there was no provision on discount sale. Thus, the agreement on discount sale upon the conclusion of this contract of this case cannot no longer remain effective, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the basis of this part of this case’s claim seeking the contractual liability is no longer reasonable.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, Defendant L, etc. and I, each of which is the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the Plaintiff A, C, D, E, and F, which is the amount equivalent to the joint tort liability for damages, the amount equivalent to the discounted sale price of the Plaintiff A, D, E, and F, which is the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the purchase price of the purchase at a discount of KRW 59 million (59 million X10%, Plaintiff C claimed at a discount of KRW 60,795,000, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), Plaintiff B, the amount of KRW 54 million for the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 49 million for the Plaintiff L, and each of them after the date of each tort, are liable to pay damages at an annual interest rate of KRW 15% as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 7, 2016 to July 19, 2016 to each of them.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against Defendant I, K, L, etc. by the remaining plaintiffs except Plaintiff C is accepted as reasonable. Each claim against the above Defendants by Plaintiff C is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and each claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Each claim against the Defendant Union and J against the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition and sentenced.

Judges leap leaper

Judges Na Jae-young

Judges Lee Ho-su