[손해배상(기)][공1999.4.1.(79),536]
Where an employee partly pays the amount of damages, the scope of employer’s liability for damages terminates (=the amount equivalent to the employer’s fault ratio)
The employee’s obligation to compensate for damages and the employer’s obligation to compensate for damages directly inflicted on another person by an illegal act may vary depending on their separate obligations. In such a case, when the employee himself/herself partly repaid the amount of damages, the amount of damages that the employer is liable for as part of the amount of damages corresponding to the employer’s ratio of fault out of the amount of payment. Therefore, the scope of the employer’s liability to compensate for damages is limited to the amount equivalent to the amount equivalent to the amount corresponding to the ratio of the employer’s fault. Therefore
Articles 750 and 756(1) of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 94Da10931 delivered on August 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2275), Supreme Court Decision 94Da5731 delivered on March 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1571), Supreme Court Decision 94Da19600 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2773), Supreme Court Decision 97Da5706 delivered on July 24, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2206)
Yellow-ray (Korean General Law Office, Attorneys White-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of the Securities Corporation
Seoul High Court Decision 97Na42399 delivered on September 29, 1998
The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed. The case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Concerning misunderstanding of Facts
The lower court acknowledged the fact that Nonparty 1 paid KRW 19,00,000, which was withdrawn from Nonparty 1’s account of Nonparty 1, after the instant embezzlement, and KRW 9,700,000,000, which was withdrawn from Nonparty 1’s account of Nonparty 1’s limited number of accounts, and KRW 32,30,000,000, which was collected from Nonparty 1’s account of Nonparty 1’s possession, as compensation for damage.
Since the court below compared the process of the evidence cooking which was conducted by the court below in finding the facts with the records, the court below did not find the fact-finding without the evidence.
We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to mistake of facts.
Concerning the argument about the order of determination of damages
The employer’s duty of compensation for damages and the employer’s duty of compensation for damages directly inflicted on another person by an illegal act may vary depending on their separate obligations. In such a case, when the employee himself/herself partly pays out of the amount of damages, the amount of damages that the employer is liable for as part of the amount corresponding to the ratio of the employer’s fault shall be limited to the amount equivalent to the amount corresponding to the ratio of the employer’s fault. Therefore, limiting the scope of the employer’s liability for damages to the amount equivalent to the amount corresponding thereto is in accord with the principle of equity and the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5731, Mar. 10, 1995; 75Da819, Jun. 22, 1
The lower court accepted only the remainder after deducting the full amount of KRW 32,300,000 from the Defendant’s liability amount for compensation, which was determined to have been repaid by Nonparty 1 in this case.
However, in so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the above legal principles as to the scope of damages for which the employer is liable when the employee pays part of the amount of damages, and the error affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)