Whether the doctrine of comparative negligence is applied in cases of a claim for damages caused by intentional tort by a representative agency of a corporation.

Even if the cause of liability for damages against a juristic person is intentional tort by the representative agency, if the victim was negligent in causing the damage, the court should take such factors into account in determining liability for damages and the amount thereof in accordance with the legal principles of comparative negligence offsetting.

Articles 35, 763, and 396 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1834 Decided November 24, 1987

Sponsorus

Daegu District Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Daegu High Court Decision 85Na1608 delivered on April 3, 1986

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, after considering the evidence in its judgment as to the conjunctive claim, found that the non-party 1, the representative director of the defendant's safe, requested the non-party 1, who is the defendant's representative director, to deposit 20,713,00 won with the defendant's safe, in the president office of the defendant's safe office on March 11, 1983, and the non-party 1 knew that the above amount was in violation of Article 17 of the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act, he would be the most of the above amount to deposit with the defendant's safe, and the above amount was received, and the above amount was issued by the non-party 1, who was the former representative director, and delivered 2 copies of the above promissory note which the defendant's safe, which was endorsed, used for his personal purpose, and the defendant should be exempted from liability for damages due to the above illegal act. In other words, the non-party 1's defense that the above amount should be exempted from liability for damages due to the above non-party 1's representative director's unlawful act.

However, even if Nonparty 1’s above act constitutes intentional tort committed by the representative body of the Defendant Depository, if the victim was negligent in causing such tort or damage, the court shall take such factors into account in determining liability for damages and the amount thereof in accordance with the legal principle of comparative negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1834, Nov. 24, 1987). The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of comparative negligence as above without examining whether the Defendant’s fault was caused by the Defendant’s fault as the Defendant’s captain. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principle on comparative negligence, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and this constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)