[1] The meaning of "business execution", which is the requirement for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code, and the standard for determining whether the harmful act against others due to the employee's intentional act constitutes it

[2] The case holding that the employer's liability is recognized on the ground that the act of inflicting injury on the hotel employees to customers is about the execution of business under Article 756 of the Civil Code

[1] The phrase "in relation to the performance of an employee's business", which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code, means that if an employee's unlawful act objectively appears to be objectively related to the employee's business activity, performance of business, or performance of business, without considering the offender's subjective circumstances. If the employee intentionally committed an harmful act against another person based on the employee's intention, the employee's act is not itself, but is in close vicinity to the employee's business time and place, and even if it is not itself, if it is conducted in the course of performing all or part of the employee's business, or if the motive for the harmful act is related to the employee's business conduct, it shall be deemed that it is related to the external and objective act of performing the employee's business, and in this case, whether the employer has caused danger

[2] The case holding that the employer's liability is recognized on the ground that the act of inflicting an injury on the hotel employees to customers is about the performance of business under Article 756 of the Civil Code

[1] Article 756 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 756 of the Civil Code

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da34272 delivered on November 18, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 53) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da25939 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 2982), Supreme Court Decision 93Da4586 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1310), Supreme Court Decision 97Da16572 delivered on October 10, 197 (Gong197Ha, 3427), Supreme Court Decision 9Da6272 delivered on July 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1758), Supreme Court Decision 209Da398939 delivered on September 39, 199 (Gong199Ha, 179Ha, 199).

Plaintiff

Heami (Attorney Kim Hyun-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 98Na7887 delivered on July 8, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court, by comprehensively taking account of the evidence admitted in its judgment, confirmed that Nonparty 1, who was employed by the Defendant at the hotel located in the Seosung-dong, Daejeon Pungdong, which was in the Defendant’s management, was on November 11, 1996 and worked as an employee, was asked about the business hours of the above hotel from the Plaintiff who was found to take a bath to the above hotel, and asked the Plaintiff about the time from 05:0 to 10 to 10 early, but tried to avoid a defect of the Plaintiff, who tried to inflict an injury on the Plaintiff, and tried to have the best knife, who was next to 04:40 on the same day, continued to have a knife with the Plaintiff’s staff member’s knife and worked as the employee, and had the Plaintiff’s knife and knife with the Plaintiff’s knife.

2. The phrase "in relation to the performance of an employee's business", which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that if an employee's unlawful act objectively appears to be related to the employee's business activity, performance of business, or performance of business (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da25939, Sept. 22, 1992; 93Da4586, Mar. 22, 1994; 97Da16572, Oct. 10, 197; 97Da16572, Oct. 10, 197) is objectively committed against another person, it shall be deemed that the employee's unlawful act was committed in the course of performing all or part of the employee's business, and if the motive of the harmful act was committed in the course of performing the whole or part of the employee's business, it shall be considered that it was objectively related to the employee's external performance of business, and that it is objectively related to the employer's liability.

According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, while performing the defendant's duties, the plaintiff's act of injury to the plaintiff of the non-party 1 committed an act of harming the plaintiff's appraisal in relation to the defendant's work, and thus, the harmful act was committed within the defendant's business place immediately after the dispatch of work, and it seems that the defendant's motive for the act was related to the non-party 1's work. Further, the defendant, the manager of the contact place, must thoroughly educate and supervise the employees representing many unspecified customers, thereby preventing the above danger that may occur within his business scope. In addition, the damage suffered by the plaintiff of the non-party 1 should be deemed as the damage suffered by the non-party 1 to the plaintiff with respect to the execution of the defendant's work.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the non-party 1's injury as an employer of the non-party 1, who is an employee, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relation to the execution of affairs, which is an employer's requirement.

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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)