logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.02.06 2019나53073
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that operates a C agency and receives products from C and engages in wholesale and retail sales business, and the Defendant is a person who was employed from around 2013 to November 2015 as an employee of the Plaintiff.

B. Around June 2013, the Plaintiff sold to D (representative: E) 600 COLGUY totaling KRW 11,400,000 per unit price of KRW 11,40,000 per unit price.

(hereinafter referred to as “sale of this case”). C.

From August 2, 2013 to September 2, 2013, the Defendant permitted D to return the amount equivalent to KRW 5,658,00 (hereinafter “instant return”) of KRW 290 among the goods sold to D as above, at that time, D returned the amount of KRW 5,658,00, and D issued an electronic tax invoice on September 22, 2014, stating that when issuing a tax invoice by the Defendant, D would pay the amount of return. D issued the electronic tax invoice on this to the Plaintiff on September 22, 2014 (the Plaintiff: the Plaintiff, the supply price: KRW 5,143,636, the tax amount: KRW 514,364, the total amount of KRW 5,658,00).

D around September 2016, it requested the Plaintiff to pay the amount of KRW 5,658,00,000 due to the instant return.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) In relation to the sale of this case, the plaintiff sold 19,00 won, which is the price with low 30,000 won or more, which was originally sold to D, and includes the conditions prohibiting D from resale of the scarcitys via the Internet and the conditions prohibiting return. Although the defendant knows that the above conditions are included in the sale of this case, he permitted the return of this case without the plaintiff. This is a breach of good labor relationship in basic labor relations, which is an act in breach of trust, and is a breach of a labor contract and a tort that causes damage to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff and delay damages to the plaintiff. 2)

arrow