beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A’s KRW 46,347,947 and its related KRW 5% per annum from March 8, 2014 to November 6, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company aimed at building and repairing ships. Defendant A is a general manager and employee of the Plaintiff, who is in charge of overall management of contracts concluded by the Plaintiff, such as selecting a working clothes producer to be paid to the Plaintiff’s employees.
Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) is a company that produces, supplies, etc. working clothes.
B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to supply the Plaintiff’s employee’s uniforms during the contract period in December 2010 from December 1, 201 to September 30, 201, and entered into the contract with Defendant B to supply the Plaintiff’s employee’s uniforms in December 201.
C. Around June 30, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B for the re-issuance of work uniforms (hereinafter “instant contract”). The term of the contract was set from October 1, 201 to September 30, 201.
1) On January 15, 2012, Defendant A, an employee of Defendant B, is deemed to be the Defendant B’s prime supplier, Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “erogic”).
(2) On January 27, 2012, Defendant A submitted to the Plaintiff a false quotation with the content that the original price offered to Defendant B increased. A submitted such false quotation to the Plaintiff. (2) On January 27, 2012, Defendant A demanded D, his subordinate employee, to submit a report stating that it is inevitable to increase the working unit price due to the increase in the original price, accompanied by the said false quotation, and the Plaintiff’s approval person who did not know that the said quotation was false, approved the proposal to increase the working unit price.
Accordingly, in 2012, the unit price of the subordinate work in the Defendant B supplied to the Plaintiff was increased by 11%.
E. Around January 25, 2013, Defendant B determined the unit price for the lower-class service uniforms supplied to the Plaintiff in 2013. Defendant A was at the lower-level price, 2,500 won per 2,283 won per the lower-level price of the actual service uniforms.