1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a model car C agency, and the Defendant was employed by the said agency from July 4, 2006 to December 13, 2012 as a business employee.

B. Around October 8, 2012, the Defendant sold to D the Grand River in Ireland (hereinafter “instant 1 vehicle”), and sold the KR9 vehicle by leasing its name to D to D (hereinafter “instant 2 vehicle”).

C. As D did not pay the purchase price for each of the instant vehicles, each of the instant vehicles was fully returned.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff sold the first vehicle of this case even though he was well aware of the financial condition of D which the defendant could not purchase the vehicle, and that D did not pay the second vehicle of this case at the time. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid 2,26,89 won in total, including overdue interest on the first vehicle of this case, temporary operation, parking fees, registration fees, etc. The plaintiff paid 2,26,889 won in advance to the second vehicle of this case. The second vehicle of this case suffered losses in total 2,327,60 won in business members' subsidies, key dancing expenses, temporary operation expenses, fines for negligence, parking fees, and damages for delay. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay 24,594,489 won in total as compensation for damages and losses for delay.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, although D was unable to purchase each of the of the instant vehicles and pay the purchase price properly, it was returned, the Defendant sold each of the instant vehicles directly or in the name of D in the form of lending D directly or in the name of D, and it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff to sell each of the instant vehicles even though he was well aware of the financial status of D in selling each of the instant vehicles, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s delivery.

(b) the sales process.