손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons why the court has accepted the judgment of the court of first instance are stated, the reasons why the judgment of the court of first instance is based on B.
Inasmuch as the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the following, this part of the claim is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Where a person permits another person to use his/her name in connection with a business of another person, and even if the business is in an internal relationship with the other person and is not an employee of the nominal owner, the business is the business of the nominal owner in a relationship with the outside, and the other person is not the same as expressing that he/she is an employee of the nominal owner. Therefore, if the person permitted to use the name causes damage to the other person by intention or negligence in performing his/her duties, the person permitted to use the name shall
In addition, in the case of the nominal name relationship, whether there is a relationship of use as a requirement for employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code should be determined on the basis of whether or not the user was in a position to direct and supervise the illegal person in an objective norm, regardless of whether or not the actual direction and supervision has been made.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3658 Decided August 21, 2001). In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 3, 15, and 16 of this Court and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of an order to submit tax information to the director of the tax office in bad faith, the Defendant’s wife C is registered as an applicant for trademark “E”, and the facts registered as the business operator of the instant business establishment, the trade name of which has been changed in sequence to “E”, “D”, and “J” may be recognized. However, in light of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was in the position to direct and supervise C
In addition, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, such as evidence Nos. 15 through 19, is considered as a requirement for employer liability.