[손해배상][집22(2)민,228;공1974.10.1.(497) 8012]
Whether the husband is liable for the damage of the seller when the husband or his deceased person committed a tort in the course of carrying out the affairs of purchase and transfer registration of ownership as the agent of the wife, or whether the wife is liable for the damage of the seller.
If the husband purchases real estate as the agent of the wife and the husband or the deceased of the husband causes damage to the seller by committing a tort when the husband purchases real estate as the agent of the wife, the wife and the husband and the deceased of the husband shall be deemed to be in the direction and supervision relationship at least in appearance and shall be deemed to be responsible as the employer.
Article 756 of the Civil Act
Yung-Jung, Attorney Kim Yong-hwan, Counsel for defendant
[Judgment of the court below]
Seoul High Court Decision 73Na613 delivered on November 15, 1973
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney:
In its explanation, Nonparty 1 (the husband of the defendant) purchased 200 square meters from 425 to 362 square meters on behalf of the plaintiff, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, on behalf of the plaintiff, on behalf of the non-party 2, and received all documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer from the plaintiff on February 17, 1970, and he did not immediately pass the registration of ownership transfer on the above land. The above non-party 2, who was the death of the plaintiff, submitted to the competent authority a report of land category change to the land category of the plaintiff who was de facto converted from the land category of the above land before the land category of the above land, and submitted it to the competent authority to change the land category of the above land to the land category of the above land and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 25, 1970, and therefore, the defendant did not have any legal relation between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, who was the agent of the above land, with additional dues imposed by the plaintiff 1 to the above 36.57.
However, in the execution of the business of selling and selling the land or transferring the ownership, if Nonparty 1, the husband of the defendant, had Nonparty 2, who is his husband, forged a land category change report of the plaintiff's name and changed his land category to the site, and had the registration of ownership transfer completed the registration of ownership transfer by voluntarily entering the sale date in the registration form on July 25, 1970, the effect of the sale registration procedure belongs to the defendant. Thus, in relation to the third party, even though the defendant was unaware of the illegal act of Nonparty 1, who is his agent, or Nonparty 2, who is his doctor, even though he did not know of the third party, it is reasonable to interpret that the defendant should not be exempted from liability as the employer because he was in external relation with the above third party. However, the judgment of the court below based on the opposing opinion is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to employer liability, and the appeal on this point is without merit.
Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Rin- Port (Presiding Justice)