beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended at the trial by the plaintiff's incidental appeal, is as follows:
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following changes, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Modification] The provisions of subsection (b)(3) and (c) of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:
(3) The Defendant asserts that F’s above act does not constitute the Defendant’s act of executing the business of leasing an officetel, which the Plaintiff knew or did not know by gross negligence, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for employer’s liability against the Defendant.
The term "major negligence of the victim who is exempted from the employer's liability" refers to a situation in which it is deemed reasonable to deem that there is no need to protect the victim from the perspective of fairness and lack of due care, and there is no need to protect the victim from the perspective of fairness, because it is considerably contrary to the duty of care required of the general public by believing that the act of the employee would not have been lawfully performed within his or her authority even though he or she could have known that the act of
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da6381 Decided October 22, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da61377 Decided April 10, 2014, etc.). In light of the following, it is insufficient to recognize that F’s aforementioned act was not an act of performing the Defendant’s office leasing business of officetels, or was not known by gross negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
(4) Even in cases where an employer is liable for an intentional tort committed by an employee, if the employer was negligent in contributing to the occurrence and expansion of the damage, such an employee’s fault shall be determined in determining the scope of the employer’s liability.