beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
Basic Facts
This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court is as stated in paragraph (1), except where the "this Court" in Section 3, Section 1, Section 2, Section 4, Section 1, and Section 2, among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, is deemed to be "Support for the Daejeon District Court", and therefore, it is also accepted in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
This part of the judgment of the court on the cause of a claim is identical to that of Paragraph 2, except for the dismissal of Section 3, Sections 17, 4, and 3 among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
B. The defendant asserts that "joint criminal conduct occurred in the course of offering rebates to the employees in charge of the plaintiff's customer according to the plaintiff's representative director C's instruction, so the plaintiff's sales and profit increase." The defendant's liability for damages concerning joint criminal conduct should be denied or its scope should be limited."
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 3, it is not sufficient to acknowledge any particular circumstance that could limit the defendant's liability for the joint criminal conduct, such as the fact that the defendant and C created funds with the money withdrawn from the account held in the name of the plaintiff and provided money and entertainment to the employees in charge of the plaintiff's business. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge any other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the submitted evidence alone increased the plaintiff's sales and profit due to the joint criminal conduct, or the plaintiff's negligence was involved in the occurrence and expansion of damage.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
On the other hand, the scope of liability for damages caused by joint tort shall be determined by evaluating the whole act of the perpetrator together in relation to the victim, each tortfeasor bears the responsibility for the whole amount of compensation, and one person of the perpetrator bears the responsibility for the amount of compensation.