1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the deletion of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the "decision on user liability" from 6th to 9th 10th , and the part of the "4. conclusion" from 9th 11 to 19th , and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. 1) The plaintiff asserted that D et al. is liable for employers as stated in paragraph 2-4 of the above provision. The defendant's act does not constitute the defendant's act of compelling D et al. to pay D et al. to the defendant, and even if it constitutes an act of executing office affairs, since D et al.'s act was an act for his own interest only and was not lawfully performed within his/her official authority or gross negligence, the plaintiff cannot be held liable for employer's liability, and even if the defendant is found liable for employer's liability, the defendant's act cannot be held liable for employer's liability, and even if it is recognized as the defendant's act of performing office affairs, it is the requisite for employer's liability as provided in Article 756 of the Civil Act. 2) If an employee's tort appears to be objectively related to his/her employee's business activities or performing office affairs, it shall be deemed an act for performing office affairs without considering the actor's subjective circumstances. The issue of whether it is objectively related to the performance of office affairs should be determined based on the degree of damages related to 14.