Where the victim knew or did not know that he was not involved in the execution of the duties of the employee, and the employer's responsibility.

Even if an employee’s act does not relate to the employer’s execution of business, in cases where it is deemed that the employee had performed the relevant business, the external theory or the external standard theory that intends to protect the victim, such as having performed the relevant business, does not intend to protect the employee even a person with bad faith or gross negligence equivalent to the employee’s performance of business.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Busan City Agricultural Cooperatives

Busan District Court (73 Gohap1189)

The appeal by the plaintiff, etc. is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5,00,000 won with an annual interest rate of 9% from September 6, 1970 to the full payment system.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials.

The plaintiff et al. received money from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2's deposit office with the non-party 5's deposit account account No. 1 to the non-party 5's non-party 2's deposit account account, and the non-party 1 to the non-party 2's deposit account with the non-party 5's deposit account No. 1 to the non-party 8's deposit account account No. 1 to the non-party 5's deposit account No. 1 to the non-party 2's non-party 1. The non-party 2's deposit account No. 5's deposit account No. 1 to the non-party 5's deposit account No. 1 to the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1'

Although Nonparty 2, as Nonparty 1’s sewage, received money such as exhibition from the Plaintiff, etc., and deducted the money from Nonparty 3 Co., Ltd., it is an act by Nonparty 1 as an employee of the Defendant, it is not sufficient that Nonparty 1 is an external theory or external standard theory that protects the victim, such as the case in which he did not have any authority to perform such duties, and it is obvious that Nonparty 1 does not protect the victim with bad faith and gross negligence, who knows that it is not about the employee’s performance of duties, and that it does not protect the victim with bad faith or bad faith. In this case, according to the above evidence, it is evident that Nonparty 2 did not leave money to Nonparty 2, such as a certificate of deposit, and that Nonparty 3’s request for payment from Nonparty 2 was rejected in light of the fact that the Plaintiff et al. was entering the funds of Nonparty 3 Co., Ltd., and that he did not have any authority to perform such duties, and that he did not know that it would be against the witness’s duty to pay the above facts.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)