beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant regarding the conjunctive claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Even where an employee's illegal act appears to fall within the scope of the employer's execution of business externally, where the victim himself/herself knew, or was unaware by gross negligence, that the employee's illegal act does not fall within the scope of the employer's execution of business, the employer's liability shall not be imposed on the employee's or the supervisor of business, instead of
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da29850 delivered on April 26, 1996). The term "major negligence" refers to a situation in which it is deemed reasonable to deem that there is no need to protect the other party from the perspective of fairness that the other party's negligence is significantly in breach of the duty of care required for the general public because the other party to the transaction knew that the other party to the transaction did not lawfully engage in the act within his/her authority, even though he/she could have known that the other party's act was not lawfully performed within his/her authority and authority.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da49978 delivered on July 24, 1998). 2. The court below acknowledged the following facts based on the employment evidence.
① The Defendant is a company importing and selling Mests vehicles, and C is a business employee employed by the Defendant and engaged in the Defendant’s automobile sales business by holding the Section E Team Vice-President in the position of the Defendant.
② Around February 2013, via C, the Plaintiff concluded a motor vehicle sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would receive vehicles among March 2013, 2013, by purchasing 53.8 million won (including value-added tax) of the instant motor vehicle from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).
③ On February 26, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10 million, and KRW 32 million on February 27, 2013 to an account under the name of the Defendant, not the Defendant’s account, as vehicle price.
4. However, C shall be subject to this.