beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 230,1950,000 as well as 20% per annum from June 3, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person registered as a business operator under the trade name of “D” and engaged in the used cars transaction business from August 7, 2006, and Defendant B is a person employed by the Plaintiff and worked as a used cars dealer operated by the Plaintiff.
B. From November 23, 2013 to February 2, 2015, Defendant B purchased a total of KRW 157 million from the Plaintiff with the purchase price of used cars, and sold it to others without the Plaintiff’s permission, and consumed it in mind. From July 27, 2013 to February 2, 2015, Defendant B purchased 27 vehicles with the sale price of used cars received from the Plaintiff, and sold 27 vehicles to others with the sale price of used cars received from the Plaintiff, and had the Plaintiff consume part of the purchase price with the mind, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff KRW 7,3250,00.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4-7 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,1950,000 (= KRW 158,770,000 and KRW 7,3250,000) as compensation for damages arising from the above tort and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 3, 2015 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.
3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B for the same damages as recognized in relation to the above Defendant B, since it was financial guarantee that Defendant C would be liable to compensate the Plaintiff for any damage caused to the Plaintiff by intention or negligence during his employment.
However, the evidence No. 2 (Financial Guarantee) that corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion does not have any evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.