The term "person who supervises business affairs in lieu of an employer" in Article 756 (2) of the Civil Code means a person who is in a position to supervise specific business affairs in lieu of an employer objectively.

Plaintiff’s Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea Heil Transport Co., Ltd. and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 71Na999 delivered on October 26, 1972

All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendants respectively.

Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney

In full view of all the evidence listed in the judgment of the court below, the court below did not find any illegality against the rules of evidence in finding that the bicycle, which gets a bicycle crossing the way of the plaintiff's getting on and off due to the circumstances of the accident such as the original judgment, conflicts with the front wheels of the truck at the time of the defendant company's original board, and the plaintiff exceeded the plaintiff and the defendant suffered a favorable retirement aggregate, and there is no ground to appeal against the judgment of the court below on the ground of the evidence not adopted by the court below.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 756(2) of the Civil Act, the court below's decision that "a person supervising business affairs in lieu of the user" means a person in a position to supervise specific business affairs in lieu of the user objectively, and that only one individual is the representative director of a corporation, the defendant's "A" cannot be held liable to the individual, and there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant is a person in charge of the appointment and supervision of the truck driver who is an employee in lieu of the defendant company, in addition to the defendant's general executive authority in the position of the representative director of the defendant company, in addition to the defendant company's general executive authority in the position of the representative director of the defendant company, and in fact, the defendant is a person who is the employer in lieu of the defendant company (the commercial logic itself recognizes that the defendant company is responsible for the appointment and supervision of the driver in fact for the purpose of receiving the rent for the use

The judgment on the third ground for appeal as above;

Upon examining the original judgment, as pointed out in the argument of the appeal by the plaintiff, defendant 2 is the representative director of the defendant company who is the actual owner of the appointment supervision of the driver of this case as the representative director of the defendant company, and the company did not directly make a decision on this point, but it cannot be said that the defendant 2 did not have an organization for the appointment supervision of the driver of this case and that there was a substantial relation between the occurrence of this accident and the occurrence of this accident. Thus, even if the court below made a decision on this point, the plaintiff's claim is not long, and the appeal is eventually without merit.

Although the Defendants did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, they cannot escape from the dismissal of appeal, since they did not submit the grounds of appeal within the statutory period from the date of receipt of the notice of acceptance of

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices B-Bhan (Presiding Judge) and B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-Jed