[1] The meaning and standard of determining "in relation to the execution of affairs" under Article 756 of the Civil Code

[2] Where a victim's intentional act of an employee is recognized as a malicious or gross negligence, whether the employer's liability is established (negative), and the meaning of the victim's gross negligence exempted from the employer's

[3] The case holding that the act of forging a bill by the vice head of a bank serving as the examination station is objectively related to the execution of the bank's affairs and cannot be viewed as being grossly negligent for the victim

[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 related to the employee's business activity, work execution, or performance of affairs, such act shall be deemed to be performed 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 related to the employee's original duty and tort, the degree of the employee's loss and the degree of responsibility for the employee

[2] Even in cases where a tort committed by an employee appears to fall within the scope of the execution of duties in appearance, if the victim himself/herself knew or was unaware of the fact that the act committed by the employee does not fall within the scope of the execution of duties in place of the employer or the supervisor of the relevant affairs on behalf of the employer, he/she shall not be held liable for the employer. In such cases, the gross negligence refers to the situation where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction, even though he/she was aware of the fact that the act by the employee would not have been lawfully performed within his/her authority if he/she did not have been done within his/her authority due to the fact that the other party to the transaction, he/she did not have due diligence to the degree close

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which denied the employer's liability on the ground that the act of forging the endorsement of bills by the vice head of a bank serving as the examination team objectively related to the execution of the bank's affairs, and cannot be viewed as being grossly negligent

[1] Article 756 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 756 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 756 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da38168 delivered on October 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3761), Supreme Court Decision 95Da46890 delivered on January 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 765), Supreme Court Decision 97Da16572 delivered on October 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3427), Supreme Court Decision 95Da3953 delivered on February 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 652), Supreme Court Decision 97Da58170 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 197) 97Da39799 delivered on September 197, 197 (Gong1997Da198979 delivered on June 29, 197)

Korean Industrial Machinery Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant Bank (Law Firm Han-U.S. Law Office, Attorneys Yu-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na9327 delivered on July 7, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the non-party 1 did not know the above fact that the non-party 1 had the above credit guarantee company's financial condition or feasibility of the loan-related company from around July 193, the court below rejected the non-party 1's request for the above credit guarantee company's loan-related transaction, and the non-party 1 did not have the authority to conduct loan execution or receipt business on behalf of the defendant bank, and the bank did not have the authority to request the non-party 1 to issue the above credit guarantee company's loan-related transaction to the non-party 1 because the non-party 1 did not know of the above credit guarantee company's financial condition or business feasibility. The defendant bank did not use the above credit guarantee company's own right to request the non-party 1 to use the above credit guarantee company's loan-related company's loan-related company's non-party 1 and the non-party 1's company's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1 to the above credit guarantee company's non-party 1's commercial endorsement.

2. Determination

A. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the above fact-finding and the claim for a promissory note payment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and misapprehension of legal principles as to the power of representation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Thus, the ground of appeal on

B. On the second ground for appeal

However, the court below rejected the defendant's employer's liability for the following reasons on the ground that, even if the act of forging Nonparty 1's endorsement is external, it does not seem to be closely related to the act within its official authority, and the plaintiff did not know that the act of forging endorsement by Nonparty 1 does not constitute the act of performing the affairs of the defendant bank when acquiring the bill of this case.

The meaning that an employee’s unlawful act falls under the scope of employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act is objectively deemed an act of performing business affairs or affairs, without considering the actor’s subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the performance of business affairs should be determined by considering the degree related to the employee’s original duty and tort, and the degree of the employer’s responsibility for creating risks and failing to take preventive measures against losses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da38168, Oct. 13, 1995; 95Da46890, Jan. 26, 1996). In cases where an employee’s unlawful act appears to fall under the scope of employer’s duty of care, it is reasonable to view that the employee’s unlawful act falls under the scope of employer’s duty of care, such as an act of care, to the extent that the victim knew or was unable to know due to the victim’s gross negligence, and that it is not necessary for the other party to the employee’s duty of care within 97Da97, etc.

However, unlike the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the fact that the defendant bank shared duties by dividing the bill into those of the examination team and the general public who are not employees of the financial institution is born, and thus the contents, scope, and difference of its official authority cannot be easily known. The class of the above non-party 1 is the vice head in charge of loan, and there is room to think that the above non-party 1 is a person who is authorized to perform external legal acts such as lending, guarantee, bill act, etc. on behalf of the head of the bank, and the above non-party 1 cannot be viewed as a person who is authorized to perform external legal acts such as lending, bill act, etc. on behalf of the head of the bank. The above non-party 1 was the representative director of the Jung Heavy Industries who was in charge of post management at the request of the defendant bank to increase credit and to prevent the bankruptcy of the above company, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the above act of forging the above act of forging the bill constitutes an act of forging the above non-party 1's duty and therefore, it cannot be objectively recognized that the plaintiff's act of collecting the above defendant 1's.

Nevertheless, without examining the above points, the court below determined that the act of forging the endorsement by Nonparty 1 appears to be closely related to the act in its official authority and thus, it cannot be deemed that the act of forging the endorsement by the above Nonparty 1 appears to be an act within its official authority. Further, the plaintiff did not know of the fact that the above endorsement by Nonparty 1 does not constitute an act of executing the business affairs of the defendant bank, which committed an unlawful act of misapprehending the legal principles as to job relationship and gross negligence with the employer's responsibility, and since it is obvious that such an unlawful act has influenced the conclusion of the judgment, the grounds of appeal pointing this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)