The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On September 21, 2019, around 10:59, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along the passage of the instant golf course run by Defendant E (hereinafter “instant golf course”) located in the Gu, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant golf course”).

In this regard, on the left side of the Plaintiff’s driving direction, the Plaintiff’s game assistant (one-person) entered this golf car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) and collisioned the part above the Plaintiff’s left side of the vehicle with the front side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,860,000 as insurance money, excluding KRW 500,000,000 for its repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The accident of this case was caused by the defendant's game assistant, who was the defendant's employee, and caused the plaintiff's vehicle. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above insurance money to the plaintiff as the employer of the above game assistant.

2) The Defendant’s Gyeonggi assistant is not a person working for the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant cannot be held liable for employer’s liability. Even if not, the instant accident is an event within the golf course and is at least 50% of the Plaintiff’s negligence.

B. Determination 1) As to whether the Defendant is liable for employer’s liability against the Gyeonggi assistant, the relationship between the employer and the employee under Article 756 of the Civil Act is not always limited to the case where there is an effective employment relationship, and even if the Gyeonggi assistant is not an employee under the Labor Act who provides labor for the purpose of wages in a subordinate relationship with the operator of the golf course’s establishment (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13432, Jul. 30, 1996), the Defendant may be deemed exempted from the employer’s liability.