(a) The case holding that it is necessary to prove that the source other than the newspaper company is not responsible for paying or compensating for the unpaid advertising fees he/she recruits and solicits on behalf of the advertiser, but the unpaid advertising fees are not attributable to himself/herself but not for his/her own reason but for the exclusion of such fees, such as the bankruptcy of the advertiser;

(b) The case interpreting that the document is a disposition document stating that the written statement concerning the payment of unpaid advertising fees submitted by the members other than newspapers to the company will assume the responsibility for paying unpaid advertising fees;

(a) The case holding that, although a newspaper worker is not responsible for paying or compensating for the unpaid advertising fees he/she recruited and recruited on behalf of the advertiser, he/she should prove that the unpaid advertising fees are not attributable to himself/herself but are not not attributable to himself/herself, but cannot be collected due to the bankruptcy, etc. of the advertiser;

(b) The case which interpreted that it is a disposal document with the content that the letter concerning the payment of unpaid advertising fees submitted by the members other than newspapers to the company will assume the responsibility for paying unpaid advertising fees;

A. Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 105 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu683 delivered on Nov. 8, 1988 (Gong1988,1523) (Gong1523). Supreme Court Decision 92Da818 delivered on Apr. 23, 1993 (Gong193,1524)

Plaintiff

Busan Busan District Court Decision 200Na1548 delivered on May 1, 200

Busan High Court Decision 90Na14270 delivered on December 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of appeal supplementary to the appeal of April 2, 1992 are examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the submission period).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on macroscopic evidence, that the plaintiff, as a member of the advertising outside of the defendant company, invited the advertisement to collect and deposit the advertisement fees in the manner as stated in its reasoning, and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring to the real estate owned by the defendant company for securing the liability for the collection of advertising fees, and thereafter, the plaintiff prepared and delivered a letter (No. 24, No. 25-2, No. 25-2, and No. 28) that the plaintiff would pay the unpaid advertising fees for several times as stated in its reasoning, and the fact that the plaintiff's unpaid advertising fees for the plaintiff at the time of the closing of argument in the court below is 124,815,163 won or more at the time of the closing of argument in the court below. Such fact-finding by the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of judgment that could affect the judgment, such

The non-advertisement workers of the defendant company are workers in subordinate employment relations with the defendant company and are only responsible for the duties of paying the fees for the attempted advertising which they recruited and recruited, and are not responsible for paying or compensating for on behalf of the advertiser. (See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu682 delivered on November 8, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu683 delivered on November 8, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1676 delivered on November 8, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1676 delivered on November 8, 198; Supreme Court Decision 200Da88990 delivered on September 28, 2000). Thus, if the court below determined that the unpaid advertising fees are not attributable to the defendant company, the plaintiff is not liable for the damages due to the plaintiff's bankruptcy, and the plaintiff's failure to pay them to the defendant company due to the above reasons, the court below should prove that the plaintiff's failure to pay them for the reasons other than the defendant company's advertising advertising, as determined by the court below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)