1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the addition or dismissal as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

(a)in Chapter 5, paragraph 2, “There is an obligation to pay”, add to:

(1) The Plaintiff and F agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for the difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, instead of adjusting the unit price of Defendant MID, and in fact F paid the amount equivalent to the difference to the Plaintiff in cash, so there is no proof as to the extent of the difference under the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, the period of trading the price for the goods claimed by the Plaintiff is from August 24, 201 to December 2, 2011, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole in light of the written evidence Nos. 4 to 6, and No. 2, it is difficult to recognize that F has paid the difference in cash within the above sales period, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit).

(b) from 7 pages 6 to 16 are as follows:

The phrase "in relation to the performance of duties," which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that when an employee's unlawful act appears objectively to be objectively related to the employee's business activities, performance of duties, or performance of duties, such act shall be deemed to have been performed without considering the employee's subjective circumstances. Here, whether it is objectively related to the performance of duties of the employer should be determined by considering the degree related to the employee's original duties and illegal acts, the degree of the employee's occurrence of risks to the employee

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41471, Jan. 18, 2008). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health unit and the following circumstances regarding the instant case are considered.