2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by each person.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,757,920,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount for which payment is sought next shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 609,928,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the day of service of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

Defendant: The part against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) assertion that is an employee or an expression manager with the Plaintiff’s comprehensive power of attorney and a dispute over the Defendant’s processing transaction constitutes the grounds for the judgment of the first instance court; and (b) such assertion is cited as it is, except

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. Determination as to the assertion that an employee or a Apparent manager with a partial comprehensive power of attorney of the plaintiff

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the non-party 1 is the director of the company's branch office in Gangnam of the defendant company with a partial comprehensive power of attorney as to the defendant's business, and therefore, since the contract of this case concluded by the non-party 1 is valid under legitimate authority, the defendant is obligated to pay the purchase price of this case to the plaintiff.

Therefore, according to the above evidence, the team leader of the defendant company's Gangnam branch office at the time of the contract of this case is the non-party 2, and the non-party 1 is the non-party 3 member working as the director at the business team in Gangnam branch office at the time of the contract of this case, and the non-party 1 is the non-party 1's member of the business team at Gangnam branch office at Gangnam branch office at the time of the defendant's business team. The non-party 1 regularly visited the defendant's customer at the business team at the defendant's Gangnam branch office at the time of the defendant's business team and proposed a communication network corresponding thereto. Accordingly, if the customer wants to provide new communications services, he was prepared as a business promotion report and reported the matters related thereto to the non-party 2 who is the head of the business team of the defendant company at the time of the contract of this case. Furthermore, according to the business contract management guidelines at the time of the defendant's 2003, it is difficult to recognize the above part of the defendant's right to represent or the contract.

(2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if Nonparty 1 was not an employee with the actual partial comprehensive power of attorney, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract using a title that can presume the Defendant’s partial comprehensive power of attorney, which is the head of the business team. Thus, Nonparty 1 is a person equivalent to the employee who has a partial comprehensive power of attorney pursuant to the provision of the express manager under Article 14 of the Commercial Act, and therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant sales price to the Plaintiff

However, even if it can be inferred about the provision of Article 14 of the Commercial Act with respect to the non-party 1, if the plaintiff knew or was negligent in gross negligence that the non-party 1 was not an employee with a partial comprehensive power of attorney, the plaintiff cannot be held liable for the defendant. As seen above, the contract of this case is an intermediate stage in a series of transactions from the K Twitel, which is a terminal supplier, through the plaintiff and the defendant, into the final demand company, from the K Inteto Telecom. The plaintiff made this case's sales contract in advance prior to receiving the purchase price of this case from the defendant, such as paying the purchase price in cash to Done among the suppliers, and the plaintiff did not have any trade with the non-party 1 who is a representative of the defendant. Despite the fact that the transaction of this case was a large amount, the plaintiff did not verify any materials that can recognize the right of representation of the non-party 1 such as employee reduction, etc., and the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1's representative office was not the defendant's representative.

B. Determination as to the defendant's defense of processing transaction dispute

In order to resolve the financial difficulties to be caused by the purchase of the instant devices, the Defendant argued that the instant transaction in collusion with the Plaintiff and Doneone for the sole purpose of financing without real transfer, and that the Defendant cannot be held liable for it. Thus, as long as it is acknowledged that the instant sales contract was based on the act of unauthorized Representation and thus has no validity, it is not necessary to further determine the Defendant’s assertion. However, as the Defendant’s liability for damages is recognized due to the Defendant’s employer’s liability, the Defendant did not know that the instant sales contract with Nonparty 1, the victim, was part of the processing transaction and did not constitute the Defendant’s business, and thus, the Defendant was exempted from the employer’s liability. However, even if considering the circumstances and evidential materials asserted in the first instance, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant transaction was conducted only with the documents without the transfer of the actual goods, and even if the Defendant’s domestic transaction was a processing transaction as alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not have knowledge of such intention or negligence, and thus, the Defendant did not have any sufficient reason to recognize it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the first instance court's decision that recognized the employer's liability against the defendant for the illegal act of the non-party 1 and determined the ratio of liability to 80% is justifiable, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed as they are without merit

Judges Lee In-bok (Presiding Judge)