All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The phrase "in relation to the performance of duties," which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that when an employee's unlawful act appears objectively to be objectively related to the employee's business activities, performance of duties, or performance of duties, it shall be deemed that such act was performed without considering the employee's subjective circumstances. Here, whether it is objectively related to the performance of duties of an employer should be determined by considering the degree of the employee's inherent duties and tort, the degree of the employee's occurrence of risks to the employee

(See Supreme Court Decisions 98Da3930 delivered on January 26, 199, 2000Da66119 delivered on March 9, 2001, etc.). In addition, even in cases where an employee's illegal act falls within the scope of the execution of affairs in appearance, the victim cannot be held liable if the employee knew or was unaware of his/her gross negligence that his/her act does not fall within the scope of the execution of affairs in lieu of the employer or the employer. In such cases, the gross negligence refers to the situation where the other party to the transaction knew that the employee's act was not legitimate within his/her authority even though he/she knew of the fact that the other party to the transaction was not legitimate within his/her authority, and there is no need to protect the other party from the perspective of fairness.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da62029 delivered on February 11, 2003). The lower court is based on its stated reasoning.