In case where the general public can objectively believe that the act of an employee is part of the employer's business or business activities, the employer's liability for damages incurred by the employee.

It is necessary to be called an act within the scope of the employee's duty, but in case where the general public trust that the employee's act within the scope of the employee's duty, it is reasonable to impose liability on the employer in accordance with the legal principles identical with the legal principles of check agency under the Civil Act.

Article 715 of the Civil Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act

Persons who have been demoted;

Bank of Korea

Busan District Court Decision 63Na24 delivered on December 5, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant Attorney

According to the facts established by the original judgment, if the non-party 1, who was in charge of the affairs of the branch office of the defendant bank around 1957, knew that the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, who had a transaction record in the bank, could rent 20,00 won to the defendant bank, and the non-party 2, etc. entered into a contract to establish collateral security rights with the defendant bank (the non-party 2's husband) and registered the non-party 12.27 of the same year and the above non-party 2 should be held liable for damages to the non-party 1's employees for damages because the non-party 5's acts were not related to the above non-party 1's loan and the non-party 1's act should be held liable for damages to the non-party 5's employees who were in charge of the above acts for the purpose of interpreting the legal principles as to the non-party 1's damages to the non-party 2's employees.

There is no reason to discuss.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

The court below, a fact-finding court, is interpreted as the fact-finding court's decision that the contents of Gap evidence No. 9 submitted by the plaintiff did not conflict with the contents of the testimony for the return of the plaintiff's completion of the lawsuit, and it cannot be found in the records that there is any material that can be acknowledged that there is a conflict with the contents of the plaintiff's testimony for the return of the plaintiff's completion of the lawsuit, and the fact-finding that the plaintiff and the plaintiff of the non-party title filed a lawsuit jointly with the defendant for the execution of the above procedure for the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the creation of the

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Yang Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)