1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff operated a sales business of F, a groman brand, with the trade name “E” on the D 2nd floor located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, Gangseo-gu.

B. The Defendant worked at the above store from September 2007 to August 2012.

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to compensate the defendant for the loss of clothes, since the defendant did not fulfill his/her duty of care as a manager, while he/she works in the store as manager.

B. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the whole arguments, although the defendant received KRW 2 million per month and performed his work at the above store, it can be acknowledged that not only the defendant but also the plaintiff's denial and father's above store did work together with the above store. Thus, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is not enough to deem that the defendant was responsible for various clothes losses incurred during the operation of the above store, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the clothing was lost due to the defendant's breach of duty of care.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.