[손해배상(기)][집37(3)민,164;공1989.12.1.(861),1662]
The manager's illegal acts employed by the owner for the management of the multi-family housing not organized by the management body and whether the owner is liable for the employer (affirmative)
As a requirement for employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code, an employer's work as a requirement for employer's liability is not limited to a legal, continuous, but also a factual and temporary work. Thus, even if a multi-family housing subject to the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act is a multi-family housing subject to the management by a management body, which is an organization established pursuant to the same Act, is not equipped with the substance as an organization and has been actually in charge of the management affairs of the building, such as the management body's appointment of a manager and direction and supervision, the said owner cannot be exempted from liability as an employer for damages caused by the manager's intentional or negligence.
Article 756 of the Civil Act
The plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee
Attorney Yang Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant
Gwangju High Court Decision 88Na3153 delivered on December 28, 1988
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the non-party 1's 603th floor of the above 6th floor of the 1st century operated by the non-party 1, the court below held that the above 60 households were apartment constructed by the defendant, but the above 60 households were unsold in lots, and the defendant did not own ownership for the above 11th floor of the 11th floor of the 11st floor of the above 10th floor of the apartment construction promotion committee, and that the defendant's 1's 11th floor of the above 11th floor of the apartment construction promotion committee was not an independent manager of the above 8th floor of the 1st floor of the 1st floor of the apartment construction promotion committee, and the defendant's 1's 1st floor of the 1st floor of the 1st floor of the above 1st floor of the apartment construction promotion committee was not an independent manager of the 1st floor of the apartment construction management body, and therefore, the plaintiff's 1's 1's th floor of the above management.
However, an employer's work as a requirement for employer's liability under Article 756 (a) of the Civil Code is not limited to a legal and continuous work, but also a factual and temporary work. Thus, as decided by the court below, if the above order is a multi-family housing subject to the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, and the management body, which is an organization for the establishment of a multi-family housing, has been managed by the management body, pursuant to the Act, as decided by the court below, since the management body was not equipped with the actual organization, the defendant who is the owner of the building, was employed by the manager of the building, and was in charge of the above building management affairs, such as direction and supervision, etc., the defendant
Therefore, the court below should have determined whether the defendant and the non-party 1 are in a de facto control and supervision relationship, and should have determined whether the defendant and the non-party 1 are in a de facto control and supervision relationship, but the court below did not reach this point and rejected the plaintiffs' assertion on the employer's liability on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the employer's responsibility, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, the issue
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)