Whether a Si event and a sales agent are in the relationship of an employer, employee, where the sales agent who entered into a sales agency service contract for the construction of an officetel performs the sales agency business according to the intention of the event under the direction and supervision of the City event (affirmative)

The relationship between an employer and an employee under Article 756 of the Civil Act does not necessarily mean where there is an effective employment relationship, but, in fact, where a person executes a business on behalf of another person according to his/her own intention under the direction and supervision, the relationship between the two parties may be deemed to exist. Therefore, in cases where an officetel construction and a sales agency service contract are concluded and a sales agency service contract is performed, and where a sales agent performs a sales agent according to the intention of an event under the direction and supervision of the Si’s event, the relationship between the employer and

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da14148 delivered on September 30, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2848) Supreme Court Decision 96Da30182 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3328) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49542 Delivered on December 26, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 230)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Busan, Attorneys Lee Won-hoon et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Postal Sports Leisure Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na76876 decided May 26, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is proper for the court below to reject all of the arguments that Nonparty 1 is a legitimate agent entrusted by the defendant with the right to receive the sale price and that Nonparty 1's receipt of the sale price in this case extends to the defendant, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

The relationship between an employer and an employee under Article 756 of the Civil Act does not necessarily mean where there is an effective employment relationship, and even in a case where a person actually conducts business on behalf of another person under the direction and supervision of that person, the relationship between an employer and an employee may be deemed to exist between that person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da30182, Oct. 11, 1996; 2003Da49542, Dec. 26, 2003). Therefore, even in the case of construction of officetels, where a sales agent performs sales agent upon the intention of an event under the direction and supervision of the event, if a person actually conducts sales agent by concluding a sales agent service contract, as seen in the instant case, if he actually conducts sales agent according to the intention of the event under the direction and supervision of the

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records, the defendant is the operator of the instant officetel construction, and the defendant entered into a sales contract with the non-party 1 on Nov. 25, 2003 to the total of 160 households of the instant officetel sales. According to the contract, the non-party 1 shall separately designate and deliver all the documents of the sales contract, such as deposit certificates, contract documents, etc. to the non-party 1 (Article 3 subparag. 2). The non-party 1 shall submit information and plans on the sales strategy, advertising strategies, price strategies, etc. to the defendant, and shall execute the sales contract with the non-party 1 (Article 3) in accordance with the defendant's written guidelines and sales contract with the non-party 1 who signed the sales contract with the non-party 1 who signed the sales contract with the non-party 1, who signed the sales contract with the non-party 1, who signed the sales contract with the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who agreed to the sales contract (Article 7).

Therefore, the court below should have sufficiently examined whether the non-party 1 was actually under the command and supervision of the defendant in the process of performing the sales agency business and receiving the sales price, but it should be limited to the external legal relationship, such as the sales agency, without any deliberation and determination, and rejected the plaintiff's preliminary assertion. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the use relationship in the employer's responsibility.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, 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 Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)