beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is that the “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) embezzled government-funded materials without permission on September 2016; (b) embezzled government-funded materials for landscaping; and (c) conducted a survey at the Egysium establishment by carrying out a specific work order; and (c) committed a tort, such as claiming user fees for unused equipment; and (d) claiming labor costs by unused equipment; and (e) accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 392,624,009 exceeding KRW 392,624,005,05 to the Defendant under the special article clause (1) of the judgment of the first instance court.
Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 61,850,405 with damages as stipulated in paragraph (5) of the instant agreement and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) Since Article 5 of the instant arrangement provides that the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages in the event that the Defendant inflicts damages on the Plaintiff due to occupational negligence, embezzlement, breach of trust, etc., the Defendant should first be found to have committed an unlawful act, such as occupational negligence, embezzlement, and breach of trust, and thereby, incurred the Plaintiff’s damage. 2) In relation to the Plaintiff’s assertion, according to the written evidence Nos. 21 and 22, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant voluntarily donated 120 mar, which is owned by the Suwon Silsung, and embezzled and embezzled the mar for landscaping, and carried out without permission, it is recognized that the marry portion for landscaping was shipped out without permission, but it did not constitute a tort against the Plaintiff, and accordingly, it did not constitute a tort against the Plaintiff.