In a case where Party A, a business employee of Party B, filed a claim for damages against Party B on the ground that: (a) the sales of the products did not comply with the discount rate set by Company A while selling them; (b) dumped sales and virtual sales; and (c) input sales amount as if the products were sold at the arm’s length price by computer; and (c) sales amount was generated; (b) it is difficult to find that Party B had an intent to inflict damages on Company A due to virtual sales, dumping sales, etc.; and (c) it cannot be readily concluded that the damages incurred to Company

In a case where Company A claimed damages against Company B on the ground that: (a) Company A sold its products without complying with the discount rate set by Company A while selling them; (b) dumped sales and virtual sales; and (c) entered as if sales at the arm’s length price were recorded in computer; and (c) sales amount was generated; and (d) Company A sold products that were not sold after having all of the allocated products set by Company A sold to business employees, the case holding that it is difficult to acknowledge that Company A suffered damages from Company A due to its virtual sales, dumping sales, etc., in light of all the circumstances, including the fact that Company A’s stock management policy was either made pursuant to the Company A’s inventory management policy or the sales performance of Company A or its business offices did not seem to have any particular interest to its employees; and (b) Company A’s sales structure maintained cannot be readily concluded to have suffered damages from Company A’s sales, etc., which occurred within the scope of its trading structure.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Crown Co., Ltd. and (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorney Jeon Soo-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 18, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 205,509,155 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling various kinds of fruit products.

2) around January 1, 2013, Defendant 1 joined the Plaintiff Company as a week 1) and worked as a business employee at the 1st place inside the Plaintiff’s border, from October 2, 2013, and was in charge of selling and collecting the price of the instant product produced by the Plaintiff to the customer.

3) As Defendant 1’s mother’s friendship, Defendant 2 is Defendant 1’s fidelity guarantor against the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s bond management rules and the Defendant 1’s performance memorandum

1) The Plaintiff prohibited abnormal transactions, such as dumping, selling at a discount in excess of the designated discount rate, and selling virtual sales (the pretending that there was no actual transaction, which eventually leads to a large volume sales through dumping) by setting the credit management regulations and the disciplinary and variable standards for the persons involved in claims accidents, and prohibited abnormal transactions, such as commercial sales, selling at a discount in excess of the designated discount rate, and selling virtual sales (which eventually leads to a large volume sales through dumping). The Plaintiff also provides that business operators who violated

2) On January 1, 2013, at the time of entry into the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 written his/her signature on the “Rules of Company and Statement of Fulfillment of Compliance with the Use of Agreements and Mutual Aid (Evidence A)” (Evidence A). Defendant 1’s letter of performance includes a statement that he/she will not engage in an irregular business activity to achieve sales goals.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entrys at Gap's 4 through 7 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1 suffered damages equivalent to the embezzlement amount by arbitrarily appropriating the credit amount collected from the business partner without paying to the Plaintiff, or by selling the Plaintiff at an abnormal level due to the Plaintiff’s violation of the Plaintiff’s business performance standards, including dumping and selling, and then caused damages to the Plaintiff to prevent the Plaintiff from withdrawing the goods at discount rates set by the Plaintiff. This constitutes tort against the Plaintiff. Defendant 1 is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages incurred to the Plaintiff, which corresponds to the shortage of the sales amount, as compensation for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff, and damages for delay.

2) Defendant 1’s assertion

Defendant 1 does not have any fact that he arbitrarily used and embezzled the accounts receivable from his business partners. However, even though there was a shortage of computerized sales by dumping, selling virtual sales, etc., this is also the reason why the Plaintiff forced business operators including Defendant 1 to achieve the sales goal in a reasonable manner. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to seek compensation for the damages.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion of damages caused by embezzlement

The entries of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3-1 through 12 are insufficient to recognize that defendant 1 received money equivalent to the shortage of sales claimed by the plaintiff and used it at will, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for this part of this case is without merit.

2) As to the assertion of damages caused by breach of trust

A) Whether the liability for damages occurred

(1) If an employee of a company has an official duty to comply with the discount rate set by the company at the time of selling a product and the act of selling a product at a lower price than the designation of the company in violation of such an obligation, thereby resulting in property damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da4332, Nov. 25, 2010). The employee is obligated to compensate for damages arising from the company.

In full view of the purport of each argument in Gap evidence Nos. 12 through 14 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number, if any), the plaintiff set a discount rate to be observed when selling the product. Defendant 1, who sold the product as the plaintiff's business partner, did not observe the discount rate set by the plaintiff in violation of the above duties and did not enter the act of dumping, selling, selling, selling, or selling, and then entered as if the product was sold at an arm's length price, and then entered as if the product was sold at an arm's length price.

(2) On the other hand, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 10 (including each branch number, if any).

① The Plaintiff allocated monthly sales targets and daily sales targets to its head office and branch offices, and urged its employees to accomplish the goals by differentiated payment of wages and sales promotional expenses according to the achievement rate of sales targets and deposit rate of goods, etc. The head of the place of business assigned daily targets to the employees of the relevant employees, and made them report the sales rate and sales volume through message at any time every day, and made pressure to keep the employees out of the place of business until reaching the sales volume if the daily sales targets have not been achieved during the time of retirement.

② The Plaintiff (the head of a business office) forced a business employee to enter virtual sales (not selling the actual products to the customer but entering them into sales to the customer by computer) in order to raise the business performance without being able to receive inventory, etc. when the business employee failed to achieve the actual sales objective, and forced the business employee to enter them into the virtual sales (the sales to the customer by computer, inventory, etc.). The products sold on a virtual basis were owned by the business employee.

③ In order to pay the sales proceeds of products made by virtual sales to the Plaintiff, business employees have sold such products at a low price to customers, etc., and have appropriated the shortage of deposits due to the difference between the arm’s length price and the dumping price with the Plaintiff by receiving loans from the Plaintiff or financial rights.

④ If the sales proceeds are not compensated in the above way, without any particular investigation into the business members or the business partners, the Plaintiff has received a memorandum of public fund utility or a letter of repayment stating the following phrase: “The Plaintiff embezzled part of the amount received as sales proceeds,” and “the Plaintiff would pay the useful money generated at the time of his/her employee in his/her employee in his/her employee in his/her office.”

⑤ In order to avoid the above virtual sales, business partners sold products (dumping sales) to customers by applying discount rates that exceed the discount rates designated by the Plaintiff, and entered the sales by applying discount rates designated by the Plaintiff in the computer, and then dealt with the difference between the supply price and the actual goods price through the above lending, etc., or the sales shortage that was not received from the customer, and set up and set up a note of public funds utilization or a statement of repayment, etc. to the Plaintiff.

④ Defendant 1 also continuously obtained a loan from a branch or a financial right due to the virtual sales, dumping sales, etc., and, after withdrawal from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was unable to cope with the said loan, etc., Defendant 1 filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da206811 on November 4, 2013.

7) The Plaintiff: (a) sold the products with low sales volume or whose distribution period is imminent by compulsory shipment to sales members; (b) sold the said products at retail stores; or (c) sold the said products at retail stores; (d) sold the products on a virtual basis; and (e) accepted the products and deposited the sales proceeds of the products with loans, etc.

8) The Plaintiff, including Defendant 1, has filed a civil suit against the business members in the event that the business members, including Defendant 1, were unable to fulfill such compensation for losses, were urged to collect a personal report on the current status of assets from the business members and make them repay the said losses after the retirement and fail to pay the losses.

9) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sold products to major discount stores, including Empt, by applying a discount rate of 43% or more, while selling the products to sales partners who sell the products at retail stores. The retail stores, which became aware of such fact, require business partners to apply the same discount rate as a major discount store. In such a case, sales partners may sell the products by applying the same discount rate as a major discount store. However, the Plaintiff’s computer network may not apply a discount rate higher than the designated discount rate, and the sales price difference is ultimately caused by the head of the sales office or the sales members.

The following circumstances revealed through the above recognition, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s sales of all the goods allocated from the business members to sell their inventory, and the Plaintiff’s sales of such goods have not been sold through virtual sales, and the Plaintiff collected public funds from the business members and collected statements of appropriation and repayment from the business members to neglect losses of the business members. ② Even if the business members such as Defendant 1, etc. carried out virtual sales as above, it appears that the above business members did not inflict losses on the Plaintiff, but did not appear to have been in accordance with the Plaintiff’s inventory management policy or to have carried out sales performance of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s business office. In light of the above fact, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to claim that, after the virtual sales, Defendant 1 received more piece rates than other business members through the virtual sales as above, Defendant 1 did not have the intent to receive more piece rates than that of the Plaintiff’s sales of the goods from the sales of the goods. However, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 continued to receive more piece rates than the above amount of profit accrued from the Plaintiff’s sales.

Therefore, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1 does not have any justifiable reason without further examining it (On the other hand, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered damage equivalent to the amount claimed by the Plaintiff in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s personal data (Evidence A2) and the actual account sales balance (Evidence A3) are inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s personal data (Evidence A) that appears to be the basis of the current personal data situation; and (b) the Plaintiff’s personal data (Evidence A2) and the actual account sales balance (Evidence A3)

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

As a fidelity guarantor to Defendant 1, Defendant 2 is responsible for compensating the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the shortage of sales incurred by Defendant 1 while performing his duties.

2) Determination

The fact that Defendant 2 provided the fidelity Guarantee with Defendant 1 that Defendant 1 will be jointly and severally liable when Defendant 1 inflicted damage on the Plaintiff during his term of office.

However, as seen earlier, Defendant 1’s civil liability against the Plaintiff is not recognized. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2 premised on this premise is without merit without further review.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)

1) From June 24, 2007, the Plaintiff’s neglect system and the stock company were employed as business employees and worked as business employees. The merger between the Plaintiff and the neglect system and the stock company seems to have concluded a labor contract again as of January 1, 2013.