beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the participation in the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “The contract of this case is only deemed to have been concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ Intervenor D (hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor), and it is difficult to view otherwise to have been concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant corporation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant corporation is the subject of the contract of this case among the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The part of " August 14, 2017" of the 3-6-7 Myeon and 6 to " August 14, 2007", " August 27, 2017" to " August 27, 2007", and " September 4, 2017" to " September 4, 2007", respectively.
(b) 8. 14. The following shall be added to the pages 14:
On the other hand, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is based on the premise that the intervenor or the defendant corporation, who is the employer, is liable to the plaintiff under Article 756 of the Civil Code against the plaintiff, and even as seen below, the intervenor or L, by deceiving the plaintiff during the process of concluding the contract of this case.
Even if the defendant corporation cannot be deemed to bear the employer's responsibility in relation to the above illegal act, so the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
The phrase "in relation to the execution of affairs," which is the requirement for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that if an employee's unlawful act objectively appears to be related to the employee's business activities, performance of affairs, or execution of affairs, it shall be regarded as an act concerning the execution of affairs without considering the offender's subjective circumstances. Here, whether it is objectively related to the performance of affairs of an employee is based on the employee's original duties