1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding "decision on the claim for damages arising from the employer's liability" to the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination on the claim for damages arising from employer liability

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion G is the Defendant’s management office and accounting of the real estate leasing business, and managed the Defendant’s apartment, etc., and, upon entering into a lease agreement on the Defendant’s apartment that he/she manages, deceiving C to pay the amount equivalent to monthly tax from May 9, 201 to December 31, 2012, by deceiving the other party to pay the amount of monthly rent.

This is a tort regarding G’s performance of business affairs against G, an employee of the Defendant, and KRW 1,235,875,00,00 in total, plus KRW 548,25,00,00 from October 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017, which began not to pay the said KRW 687,620,00 as the amount of damages, plus the interest accrued from the contract interest accrued from October 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017, was acquired by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff’s bonds, so the Defendant is obliged to pay the said amount to the Plaintiff

B. The purport of “in relation to the performance of duties,” which is an employer’s liability requirement under Article 756 of the Civil Act, is that when an employee’s unlawful act appears objectively to be an employer’s business activity, an act of performing duties, or an act related thereto, it shall be deemed that the employee’s unlawful act was performed without considering subjective circumstances. Here, whether it is objectively related to the employee’s performance of duties, namely, whether it is related to the employee’s original duties and unlawful act, and whether the employee’s inherent duty and the degree of risk to the employee’s loss and responsibility