1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a business operator selling child miscellaneous services, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is employed by the Plaintiff and worked at the Plaintiff’s store located in D duty-free shop from June 2012 to November 2017.

On July 2017, the defendant, as an employee in charge of the business of duty-free shops due to the display of the plaintiff's store, had a dispute around E and July 12, 2017, and had a fighting on August 12, 2017.

As such, the plaintiff's store was subject to compulsory discharge measures, and the plaintiff was bound to operate the store at the above duty-free shop only until October 31, 2017.

Therefore, the Plaintiff was able to operate a store at a duty-free shop until August 2020, and the Defendant was unable to obtain the above net profit due to the Defendant’s failure to faithfully perform his/her contractual obligation under the labor contract, so the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 60,141,576 as compensation for damages due to nonperformance. Moreover, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Defendant embezzled the inventory goods worth KRW 15,598,80 at the Plaintiff store as a result of the investigation of the details of the Plaintiff’s entry and exit of the store by taking measures for compulsory discharge around November 2017. The Defendant did not embezzled the Defendant’s embezzlement of the inventory goods worth KRW 15,598,80 at the Plaintiff store.

Since the defendant, who is obligated to manage inventory goods, neglected the above duty, the defendant is obligated to pay 15,598,800 won and damages for delay due to tort to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s duty-free shop departure in the Plaintiff store, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s store was forced to leave the duty-free shop due to a dispute between the Defendant and E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff due to the defendant's default.