[손해배상][집10(4)민,149]
The employer's liability for the loss of an employee;
Where an employee causes damage to a third party due to the actual performance of his/her duties, the employer shall be liable for damages to the third party only if there is gross negligence of the necessary person.
Kim Jong-name
State Interest Corporation, Inc.
Incheon support in the first instance court, Seoul High Court Decision 61 Civil Service 639 delivered on May 30, 1962
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.
The Defendant’s grounds of appeal are the same as the statement in the grounds of appeal.
According to the Act on the Responsibility of Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Negligence, the provisions of Article 750 of the Civil Act shall not apply to the fire except for the case where the fire is caused intentionally or by gross negligence by the firer, and in the case where the worker inflicts damage on a third party with respect to the performance of his/her duties, the employer is liable to compensate for the damage to the third party only if the employee was gross negligence by the firer, and the court below, based on the cited evidence, has concluded a contract for the repair work of the government office in Incheon, the repair work of the government office in Incheon, and the defendant used the non-party as the soil engineer in the building, and the non-party's fire continues to have been repaired from the 0th of August 5, 1960 to the 0th of August 5, 1960 to the 1st of August 196 to the 3rd of the above part, which was repaired by the non-party's fault and the non-party's fault.
그러나 원심 인정 사실에 의하더라도 소외인이 본건 보수한 온돌을 건조시키기 위하여 불을 땐것은 1960년 8월 3일 13:30 경부터 20:00 경까지와 그 다음날인 8월 4일, 09:00 경부터 16:30 경까지며 본건 화재발생은 약 11시간 후인 1960년 8월 5일 02:00 경일 뿐만아니라 원심이 인용한 갑 제 7,8호증은 본건 보수한 온돌을 건조하기 위하여 불을 땐 김춘응의 진술조서로 온돌보수공사때 원고의 처 김덕례로부터 각별히 부탁받은 부분의 중방과 기둥에 과거 탄 형적이 있으므로 진흙을 바르는 조치를 하였을뿐만 아니라 1960년 8월 4일 20:00시경 본건 보수공사의 현장을 돌아보고 안전한것을 확인한 연후 돌아갔다는 취지의 기재가 있으며 본건에 있어서 그와 같은 사실이 있다면 본건 화재발생에 소외인의 중대한 과실이 있다고는 할 수 없는 것인 바 원심은 갑 7,8호증 중 그와같은 부분이 있음에도 불구하고 갑 7,8호증을 인용하면서 판시와 같은 사실인정을 하였음은 채증법칙에 위반한 사실인정을 하였다고 하지 아니할 수 없으므로 그 점에 관한 논지는 이유가 있다.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man