[물품대금][집27(2)민,154;공1979.9.15.(616),12072]
The meaning of "with respect to the performance of affairs"
Article 756 (1) of the Civil Code provides that "an employee's act of an employee against a third party shall be objectively deemed to be an act of the employee, and it shall be deemed that the employee's act is an act of the employee's original office or related to the employee's work."
Article 756(1) of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 71Da1194 Delivered on August 31, 1971
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Lee Sung-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
Attorney Han Han-chul Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 78Na3057 delivered on March 29, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined as the first point.
According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant company purchased electric wires from the plaintiff company from November 1, 1973 to August 24, 1976. The non-party did not purchase electric wires of this case thereafter, and the non-party purchased the electric wires of this case from the plaintiff company from the plaintiff company from August 31, 1977. At that time, the non-party was a horse employee who worked in the production and management division of the defendant company's Suwon Factory and worked in the production and management division of the defendant company, and he was a Saemaul with no relationship with the purchase of materials. Thus, the defendant company's previous purchase procedure at the time of the purchase of electric wires from the plaintiff company, method of approval, and various objective facts with which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, and it cannot be viewed that the non-party had the right of representation as referred to in Article 15 of the Commercial Act from the defendant company when purchasing the electric wires of this case from the plaintiff company, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
We examine the second ground for appeal.
Article 756 (1) of the Civil Code provides that "an act of an employee against a third party shall be objectively deemed to be an act of an employee and thus, it shall be deemed that the act of the non-party's employee is an act of its original office or related to the employee's work." Thus, the court below is just in holding that the act of the non-party's original adjudication as at the time of the non-party's original adjudication shall not be deemed an act of the execution of the defendant's business, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence to mislead the facts.
This paper is without merit.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice)