손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Agricultural Cooperatives Act" in Chapter 4, 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to "former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 12950, Dec. 31, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply); "Agricultural Cooperatives Act" in Chapter 6, 26, and 7, to "former Agricultural Cooperatives Act"; "The Agricultural Cooperatives Act" in Chapter 6, 26, and 7, to "former Agricultural Cooperatives Act"; "The above Act" in Chapter 5, 2, through 6, shall be deleted; the part among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted; and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance other than the changes under
2. The phrase “in relation to the performance of duties,” which is the requirement for an employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that if an employee’s unlawful act objectively appears to be an employee’s business activity, an act of performing duties, or an act related thereto, it shall be deemed that the employee performed duties without considering the actor’s subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the employee’s performance of duties should be determined by considering the degree of the employee’s inherent duties and tort, the degree of the employee’s occurrence of damage and the degree of responsibility for failing to take preventive measures
On the other hand, the so-called theory of appearance, which imposes an employer on the employee's responsibility when it appears to be objectively related to the employee's work, has been in terms of the protection of social trust and equity in the appearance. Therefore, if the victim himself/herself knew or was unaware due to gross negligence that he/she does not constitute an act of performing his/her duties, it is reasonable to deem that there is no need to protect the other party from the perspective of fairness. In determining this, the act is in violation of the legal limit.