beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 34,080,00 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from July 19, 2015 to October 10, 2017 against the Defendant.
Reasons
1. As a result of examining the defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence additionally submitted at the court of first instance, the court's legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance is examined. The reason why the court's explanation concerning this case is stated is that "a judgment on the grounds for appeal ...." in the third party's lawsuit No. 3 of the judgment of first instance is "A. The occurrence of damages liability", and "(the defendant is not a person who has committed a breach of trust as alleged by the plaintiff, and thus has received a disposition of non-suspect in the relevant investigation, but no materials have been submitted to support this up, and no materials have been submitted to support it until now)" is added to the third party's lawsuit No. 420 of the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except when using the fourth party's part or less as stated in the following 2.
2. The part to be dried;
If the victim was negligent in causing or expanding damage caused by a tort within the scope of liability for damage, it shall be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damage by the perpetrator, and if the harmful act is an act of acquisition, such as fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust, etc., and if it is recognized as comparative negligence, comparative negligence shall not be allowed only in cases where the perpetrator ultimately holds profits from the tort and results contrary to the principles of equity
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da16758, 16765, Oct. 25, 2007; 2012Da13637, Sept. 26, 2013; 2012Da13637, Sept. 26, 2013). In the instant case, the Defendant, in collusion with the Plaintiff’s former management, failed to appropriately perform the Plaintiff’s normal supervision and supervision function while entering into the instant free contract with the Plaintiff’s former management, and the Plaintiff’s negligence caused the occurrence and expansion of
I would like to say.
On the other hand, the defendant's breach of trust difference between the market price of the Pianno in this case.