logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.23 2017가합111308
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant joined the Plaintiff around October 2008 and served as the head of the Plaintiff’s planning team team and the head of the management support office from January 2010 to December 2014.

When a disused inventory, etc. occurs to the plaintiff, the defendant is obliged to sell it at a timely reasonable price to protect the plaintiff's interest.

From 2012 to 2014, the Defendant managed falsely as if the Plaintiff’s stock 7,470t of SMS class B B, which was produced by the Plaintiff, was normal inventory on the account book, and did not sell 1,188t total of 5,706t and 5,482t of the instant lecture class B, at a timely reasonable price, and did not incur a loss equivalent to KRW 2.1 billion due to the decline in the sale price, etc. to the Plaintiff.

The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages pursuant to Articles 390 and 750 of the Civil Act.

B. The Defendant worked as the head of the Plaintiff’s overseas business headquarters from January 2015 to December 2015, and bears the obligation to supply products to an overseas corporation by ascertaining the adequate demand, etc. for products produced by the Plaintiff.

In August 2015, the Defendant predicted the demand of the United States, etc. for the SMS lectures, and sent the SMS lectures of 1,162t around August 2015, and 4,472t around September 2015, and 5,634t of 4,634t to the Plaintiff, so-called the Plaintiff’s U.S. corporation.

The plaintiff suffered a total loss of KRW 1.3 billion due to delay in sales and decline in sales prices in the United States as a result of the defendant's smuggling-type shipment.

Pursuant to Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act and Articles 390 and 750 of the Civil Act, the defendant has the obligation to compensate the plaintiff for damages.

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff around October 2008 and served as the head of the Plaintiff’s planning team team and the head of the management support office from January 2010 to December 2014, and was promoted to the regular director around January 2015 and was assigned to the position of the head of the overseas headquarters until December 2015.

(b) entry and pleading of the evidence of subparagraph (1) above;

arrow