logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.15 2016나54893
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or additional parts] Part 6 Nos. 6, Nos. 4, 6, 6, “this case’s accusation” up to 6, as follows, was filed upon the request of the Korean Association of Korean Medical Doctors to regulate the source of both doctors, published on the homepage of the Korean Association of Medical Doctors, and Eul has a record of informing about 450 to 50 doctors for about 10 years prior to the instant accusation to the investigation agency for the same suspicion as the Plaintiff, and was in the position of Defendant E, it is difficult to view that B merely filed the instant accusation for the personal interest of receiving compensation, such as the Defendant’s assertion. On the 6th, the Defendant added the following contents after No. 13, and the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care to appoint and supervise the affairs related to B, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for employer due to the instant accusation.

However, with regard to the liability under Article 756(1) of the Civil Act, if an employer has paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of an employee or causes damage to an employee even if he has paid considerable attention to such appointment and supervision, the employer is not liable for compensation, but such circumstance shall be asserted and proved by the employer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da58538, May 15, 1998). Since there is no evidence to support that B, working as E, has paid considerable attention to the supervision of affairs so as not to prosecute false facts, the above argument by the Defendant is groundless.

The defendant did not know that the accusation of this case was false, which added the following matters after the 7th 4th th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.

arrow