Where a person commits the same type of tort using a similar transactional relationship, the method of determining the ratio of negligence of the relevant parties;

Even in cases where an illegal act of the same type has been committed using a similar transactional relationship, the degree of negligence of the parties related to the illegal act may be determined differently by transactional relationship, taking into account various circumstances, such as the status of the transaction partner, transaction period, details and manner of the transaction, previous transactional relationship, etc. In such cases, the determination of the ratio of negligence or the ratio of negligence to the degree of negligence of the parties is within the discretionary authority

Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Newan Mutual Savings Bank (Attorney Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han light et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na112187 decided April 24, 2007

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement submitted after the expiration of the period).

1. Relation to the performance of affairs, and whether the victim's bad faith or gross negligence is involved;

Article 756 of the Civil Act, "in relation to the performance of affairs", which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means an employee's act of performing affairs without considering the employee's subjective circumstances, when it appears that an employee's unlawful act is objectively related to the employee's business activity, performance of affairs, or performance of affairs. Whether it is objectively related to the employee's performance of affairs should be determined by considering the degree related to the employee's original duty and tort, the degree of the employee's occurrence of losses, and the degree of the employer's responsibility for the occurrence of risks and the lack of preventive measures (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu979, Aug. 13, 198; 98Da42929, December 7, 199).

In addition, even if an employee's tort appears to fall within the scope of external execution of business, if the victim himself/herself knew or was unaware of the fact that the employee's act does not fall under the act of execution of business by the supervisor in lieu of the employer or employer, he/she shall not be liable for the employer. However, in order to establish the gross negligence, even though the other party to the transaction knew of the fact that the employee's act was not legitimate within his/her authority if he/she had paid little attention, the other party to the transaction did not have committed the act within his/her authority and did not have due care and did not have to protect the other party from the perspective of fairness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da3930, Jan. 26, 1999; 201Da58443, Dec. 10, 2002).

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the non-registered managing director of the defendant company's non-registered executive director's act of forging the guarantee of the check of this case by stealing the corporate seal of the defendant company, appears to be objectively related to the business activities of the defendant company, which is the employer, or the execution of business affairs of the defendant company, and the plaintiff also committed negligence as determined by the court below in the execution of the loan of this case against the defendant company, which is believed that the guarantee of the party share table of this case was duly conducted by the defendant company, and that the plaintiff was actually done by the defendant company. However, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff did not have to be punished in the light of fairness due to the plaintiff's intentional negligence, or that the plaintiff did not know that the non-party's act does not constitute the defendant's business affairs due to bad faith

In the same purport, the court below is just to recognize the relationship of employer's liability with respect to the above acts of the non-party, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was guilty of bad faith or gross negligence, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relationship of employer's liability, the victim's bad faith or gross negligence, the violation of the rules of evidence, and the lack of reasons. The defendant's ground

2. Whether the ratio of comparative negligence is appropriate;

Even in a case where a tort of the same type is committed using a similar transactional relationship, the degree of negligence of the parties related to a tort may be determined differently by transactional relationship, taking into account various circumstances, such as the status of the transaction partner, transaction period, transaction circumstances and attitudes, and previous transactional relationship. In such a case, the determination of the ratio of negligence or negligence on the degree of negligence by the parties is subject to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da34426, Jan. 10,

In light of various circumstances as to the transaction in this case, which can be seen by the records, including facts acknowledged by the court below, the court below's judgment is not sufficient to deem the comparative negligence ratio acknowledged by the court below in consideration of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning to be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Thus, the plaintiff and defendant's grounds for appeal

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)