logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.12.23 2020가합105553
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 21, 2019 for the purpose of multimedia, hardware, software development, and manufacturing industry, the Plaintiff manufactured hardware necessary for video conversion (hereinafter “instant hardware”) and supplied them to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. Defendant B worked as the representative director of the instant company and was dismissed from office of the representative director on September 2, 2019, and was dismissed from office on September 18, 2019 by the instant company.

After that, Defendant B served as a technical director (non-registered director) in the Plaintiff from October 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020, and served again in the instant company from March 2020.

C. From November 14, 2019 to April 3, 2020, Defendant C served as a senior researcher who manufactures and inspects the instant hardware in the Plaintiff. After withdrawal from the Plaintiff, Defendant C is currently employed in the instant company.

The instant company received the instant hardware from the Plaintiff and notified the Plaintiff that it was not supplied with the instant hardware on March 27, 2020, and discontinued transactions with the Plaintiff, and produced the relevant hardware on its own.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B used the name of the Plaintiff’s technical director from the end of October 2019 to the end of February 2020. Defendant B ordered the Plaintiff’s internal director E, a director of the company, using the Plaintiff’s influence, to conduct business. Although the Plaintiff’s registration director was not a Plaintiff’s registration director, Defendant B bears the same obligation as the Plaintiff’s director pursuant to Articles 401-2 and 399 of the Commercial Act, and is liable for damages in the event of the violation of the above obligation. 2) Defendant B is the internal director of the instant company during the period when the Plaintiff worked.

arrow