손해배상(기)
The judgment below
This part of the judgment against the defendant interesting Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. is reversed, and this part of the case is applied.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal and the ground of appeal No. 4 by Defendant Epis Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Epis deposit”), in cases where an employer is liable for a tort committed by an employee’s negligence, as well as where an employer is liable for an intentional tort committed by an employee, if the victim was negligent in contributing to the occurrence and expansion of the damage, the scope of the employer’s liability may be limited by taking into account the fault of the victim in determining the scope of the employer’s liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da56952, Dec. 26, 2002). Determination of the fact-finding or the ratio of the comparative negligence or the limitation of liability in a claim for damages arising from a tort is the fact-finding authority of the court as long as it is deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision to limit the liability for damages of Defendant Eps Co., Ltd., the employer of B, by taking account of the Plaintiff's negligence, is acceptable. Furthermore, the court below's fact-finding or its determination on the grounds for comparative negligence cannot be deemed to be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles
In addition, as seen below, Defendant interesting life insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant interesting life”) cannot be deemed liable for damages for Defendant interesting life. As such, the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal premised on the establishment of the liability for damages cannot be accepted.
2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant Epis, the relationship between the employer and the employee under Article 756 of the Civil Act is always effective.