(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.25 2019나2003095

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.25 2019나2003095

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the ground for appeal by the plaintiff

A. In light of the evidence submitted to this court as to the assertion regarding the purchase of treasury stocks, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s joint Defendant B, an insurance solicitor, received money from the Plaintiff in connection with the Defendant’s purchase of treasury stocks in the insurance agency business.

The judgment of the first instance that denied the defendant's employer's liability related to the purchase of treasury shares is justifiable, and the plaintiff's assertion is rejected

B. In light of the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, such as the same previous conviction and detention in the claim regarding comparative negligence, the judgment of the first instance which assessed the Plaintiff’s negligence into 40% cannot be deemed unfair, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s fault as 40% cannot be deemed unfair, since the Plaintiff’s insurance experience was excessively trusted merely B, which is an insurance solicitor, and thus comprehensively delegated the payment of insurance premiums, unlike ordinary methods.

The plaintiff's assertion on this is not accepted.

2. Judgment on the defendant's grounds for appeal

A. As to the claim regarding the computation of compensation amount, (1) The Plaintiff asserted in the complaint that the amount embezzled by Codefendant B and C in the first instance trial as KRW 260,462,572, and filed a claim with the Defendant on the basis of employer’s liability, and subsequently, the amount of claim related to embezzlement was reduced to KRW 245,454,952 (=260,462,572 – KRW 15,07,620) on the ground that B and C repaid KRW 15,07,620).

(2) In a case where a large-sum obligor partially performs an obligation with a different amount of debt, in light of the purport of the quasi-joint and several liability system in which the intent of the parties and the full amount of the obligation are to be secured, the part to be extinguished first shall be deemed the part to which the large-sum obligor solely assumes the obligation,

This legal principle directly sets off the employer's damages by taking account of the victim's fault into account.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.04.05 2016나65688

-대구지방법원 2017.09.15 2016가단119240

-서울고등법원 2020.07.08 2019나2051704

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.07 2013가합68929

-수원지방법원 2015.11.26 2014나32066