A. The meaning of and criteria for determining "in relation to the performance of affairs" under Article 756 of the Civil Code

(b) In case where, under the implied consent of a securities company, a person who performs the business as an investment counsel while carrying out the business as an adviser of a branch, and has received fees for investment consultation and has withdrawn or embezzled deposits from the securities trade entrustment and wording of securities from an investor of stocks upon his recommendation, the case recognizing the employer's liability; and

A. The phrase “in relation to the performance of affairs”, which is an element for an employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that if an employee’s unlawful act appears objectively to be related to the employee’s business activity, work execution, or performance of affairs, without considering the offender’s subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the employee’s performance of affairs should be determined by considering the degree of the employee’s inherent duty and tort, and the degree of the employee’s occurrence of risk to the damages and the degree of responsibility for failing to take preventive measures.

(b) The case holding that the securities company is liable for the employer of the securities company on the ground that, while it has kept in advance its seal on 10 copies of money set forth in the 10th page of 209, the securities company's securities transaction consignment note that, while performing its business as an adviser for investment under the name of a regular investment adviser for a branch office and having been paid fees for investment consultation by borrowing the name of the branch office, the securities company's business as an adviser for investment, and that the person who received the fees for investment consultation also from the investment counsel, along with the investors of the share by his recommendation, carried the seal of the investors in the course of concluding the agreement for the establishment of the securities transaction account, if he had the securities company withdrawn and embezzled the deposit from the securities transaction consignment and wording unit without permission, the securities company's act or tort related to

(b)Article 756 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1923 decided Nov. 22, 1988 (Gong1989,11)

Parkyang-An Attorney Park Jong-yang et al.

Attorney Lee Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na23488 delivered on September 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The meaning that an employee's unlawful act, which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, is objectively deemed to be an act of performing duties without considering the employee's subjective circumstances, when it appears that the employee's unlawful act is objectively related to the employee's business activity or performance of duties, and whether it is objectively related to the employee's performance of duties should be determined by considering the degree related to the employee's original duty and tort, and the degree of the employee's risk occurrence and the degree of responsibility for preventing damage to the employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1923, Nov. 22, 198).

Therefore, as legally determined by the court below, although the non-party borrowed the name of Lee-ok, etc., who is a regular investment adviser at the defendant's name-dong branch, in the form of a relationship that is not a regular employee of the defendant company, he actually performed his business as an advisor of the above branch, and the defendant allowed him to use his advisory room and office, etc., and he allowed him to use his advisory room and office, and also receive fees for his investment consultation, and the non-party to make an investment as well as the plaintiff who want to make an investment upon his recommendation, and as such, did not have the plaintiff's seal in the process of concluding an agreement for establishing a trading account with the purport that the non-party entrusted the transaction of securities and deposited funds and securities, the non-party did not have the plaintiff's seal in the above name-dong branch office and affixed his seal in advance to the defendant's business, and if the court below's judgment was made in the manner of the plaintiff's securities sale entrustment agreement with the defendant's own opinion that the non-party did not have the plaintiff's own own own own seal or the defendant's own own own opinion.

With respect to the second ground:

In light of the records, the court below's decision that deemed the plaintiff's negligence as 30 percent based on the circumstances of the accident in this case as legitimately admitted by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in the rules of evidence, the incomplete hearing, the omission of judgment, the omission of reasoning, etc. that affect the judgment.

The assertion is based on the facts that the court below did not recognize, and it is also attributable to the acknowledgement of facts, the preparation of evidence, and the offsetting of negligence. All of the arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)