[손해배상(기)][공1998.11.15.(70),2648]
Where a fisheries cooperative by district has a provision concerning the liability for compensation of employees, the scope of the application of such provision.
In a case where a fisheries cooperative by district has a special provision on the liability for compensation of its employees, and the provisions stipulate that employees' liability for compensation may arise when they caused property damage to a cooperative by intentional or gross negligence in the course of performing their duties, and specifically indicate the contents of "serious negligence", and the scope of such liability and exemption or mitigation of liability and other procedures for compensation, etc., the purport of the above provision is to impose liability for compensation only when an employee has intentional or gross negligence on the part of his/her employee in order to faithfully perform his/her duties beyond the burden of liability due to negligence, and to impose liability for compensation on the employee only when the association has intentionally or by gross negligence on the part of his/her employee in order to faithfully perform his/her duties. Thus, the association has limited or mitigated the liability for compensation if it is acknowledged that the employee is liable for such liability, regardless of whether he/she is internally responsible for the liability, the association has no choice but to impose liability or liability for damages on the employee within the scope of the requirements and the scope of liability for compensation under the Civil Act.
Articles 105, 750 of the Civil Act, Article 16 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act
[Defendant-Appellant] The Fisheries Cooperatives (Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)
Defendant (Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 97Na1500 delivered on March 27, 1998
The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that since the defendant, an employee of the plaintiff's association, caused damages equivalent to the above loan by making the plaintiff union lend a bad loan to the non-party due to his negligence and making it impossible to recover the loan, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above loan suffered by the plaintiff union due to the accident in this case. Meanwhile, the plaintiff union has a " provision on the changed procedures" as stated in its holding as to the liability for compensation of its employees, but in full consideration of the whole contents such as the purpose and purpose of each provision, the procedure and effect of the compensation decision, etc., the above " provision on the changed procedures" is determined within the union's internal liability for compensation and its degree is determined, and it is interpreted that the procedure and requirements are not to exclude or limit tort liability under the Civil Act. Accordingly, the defendant is bound to bear tort liability under the Civil Act against the above loan.
However, according to the records, the plaintiff union has a special provision on the liability for compensation of its employees, and Article 5 of the above provision provides that the liability for compensation may arise when an employee of the union caused property damage to the union intentionally or by gross negligence in the course of performing his duties, and provides for the scope of "serious negligence" and exemption or mitigation of liability and other procedures for compensation. The above provision provides that the plaintiff union is liable for compensation only when the employee has intentionally or by gross negligence in order to make the employee perform his/her duties faithfully beyond the burden of liability due to negligence. The purport of the above provision is that the plaintiff union does not bear the liability for compensation in any case where the employee's liability for compensation is limited, or if necessary, the liability is exempted or mitigated. Thus, the plaintiff union is liable for compensation within the limit of the liability for damages, whether the plaintiff union claims the court or not, and the above provisions concerning the procedure and the procedure of the compensation and the degree of the liability for damages are not applied to the case prescribed in the Civil Act.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, since the above provision on the procedure of change is interpreted and the requirements and scope of the defendant's liability for damages against the plaintiff union were affected by misunderstanding of the requirements and scope of the defendant's liability for damages.
Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)