logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.01.15 2018나100036
불법행위로 인한 손해배상 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following determination as to the plaintiff's new assertion by this court, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

(2) On the other hand, the plaintiff, as the representative director of IB, should change the name of one unit of the Gu in the name of B at the request of the plaintiff, as the representative director of IB. However, the plaintiff lost this in a lawsuit against IB, and later changed the old unit to the R which was acquired by transfer. This is the act of breach of trust against the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff is liable for damages caused by tort.

Since the crime of breach of trust is established by a person who administers another's business in violation of his/her duty to obtain pecuniary benefits and thereby inflict damage on another person who is the subject of the business, the subject of the crime must be in the position

Here, “a person who administers another’s business” is required to protect or manage another’s property on the basis of a fiduciary relationship between the parties, beyond a mere fiduciary relationship obligation. If the business is not a business of another person but a person’s own business, the person does not constitute a person who administers another’s business, even though the principal substance of the relationship is beneficial to the other person and is obliged to manage that business.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do10479 Decided January 20, 201, etc.). According to the written evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and according to the court’s results of fact inquiry and the overall purport of oral argument with respect to the I stock company, M entered into a contract with M, the wife of which, after the instant contract, would take over D2 accounts between B and B, and accordingly I.

arrow