The facts and evidence established by the court below are based on the facts and evidence presented by the defendant. ① The defendant was employed as an external employee in the advertising station of the plaintiff company from around 2000 to 2004; ② the defendant was invited from the advertiser in the name of "Stong Planning"; ② the plaintiff company submitted the advertisement trust document stating the advertiser, content, advertising price, etc.; and made the plaintiff company deposit the advertisement fee with the plaintiff company. ③ The plaintiff company paid the defendant the fee to the defendant by receiving the advertisement fee from the advertisers; ④ the plaintiff company's internal rules (hereinafter referred to as "the bylaws of this case") provide the defendant with the fee corresponding to a certain ratio of the advertisement amount kept by the defendant other than the basic grade as remuneration; ④ the defendant's internal rules (hereinafter referred to as "the bylaws of this case") received the first warning when attracting the advertisement of the amount below the standard on more than twice continuously; ⑤ the defendant company withheld the labor income tax on the remuneration paid to the plaintiff company to the defendant; and the defendant was affiliated with the National Pension and Health Insurance Fund.

As long as the defendant is in the position of the plaintiff company's employee, in principle, the defendant is liable only to collect advertising fees from the advertiser and deposit them into the plaintiff company. It cannot be viewed that the defendant is liable to pay them on behalf of the advertiser.

However, according to the records, the non-permanent employees of the advertising station are required to deposit the relevant advertising fees into the Plaintiff company within 60 days from the month when the advertising is entrusted. The Plaintiff company received the advertising fees from non-permanent employees of the advertising station within a certain period from the month when the advertising is entrusted to the company, and paid them to the non-permanent employees of the advertising station as the fees. ② Even if the advertising fees are collected from the advertiser, the non-permanent employees of the advertising station are not paid to the Plaintiff company without the deposit deadline. ③ The non-permanent employees of the advertising station are allowed to pay the advertising fees to the non-permanent employees of the advertising station without the deposit deadline if the advertising fees are paid to the non-permanent employees of the advertising station, and the non-permanent employees of the advertising station are not able to pay the advertising fees to the Plaintiff company without the deposit deadline. ③ The non-permanent employees of the advertising station are not necessarily treated as the advertising fees paid to the Plaintiff company without the deposit deadline of the Plaintiff's advertising office's deposit of the advertising worker after the deposit deadline.

Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated on whether the Plaintiff was liable for the payment of the unpaid advertising fees to the Plaintiff based on the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to pay the unpaid advertising fees due to its bankruptcy, etc., rather than the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant is liable for the payment of the unpaid advertising fees to the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Plaintiff Company was unable to pay the advertising fees from the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the existence of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the advertising fees.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)