[1] Whether the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis to an act of acting as an agent in breach of trust (affirmative) and the criteria for determining whether the other party's bad faith or negligence is

[2] Whether the fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of negligence of the parties involved in the tort is an exclusive authority of a fact-finding court (affirmative)

[1] Articles 107 (1) and 116 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da39602 delivered on January 15, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 290) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20694 Delivered on January 19, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 504) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da59662 Delivered on February 26, 2004 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da47989 Delivered on October 27, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2747) and Supreme Court Decision 200Da1327 delivered on November 24, 200 (Gong201Sang, 124) and Supreme Court Decision 200Da320384 delivered on December 10, 205 (Gong2003Da384535 delivered on December 24, 2005).

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Jinn Law, Attorneys Im Pump et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Han-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na66638 delivered on July 28, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

In a case where the other party knew or could have known that the other party's expression of intention was made by an agent and the intention of the agent was in breach of trust for the benefit of himself or a third party against the principal's interest or will, the principal cannot be held liable for the act of the agent under an analogical interpretation of the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act. Whether the other party knew or could have known that the other party was not the intention of the agent should be reasonably determined based on objective circumstances, such as the process of formation of the expression of intention between the agent and the other party, and the contents thereof, and the effects arising therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da39602, Jan. 15, 1999; 2003Da59662, Feb. 26, 2004).

The court below determined based on its adopted evidence that the non-party, who was an employee of the defendant company, did not intend to conclude the insurance contract with the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant company, received money as insurance premiums from the plaintiffs, and used it arbitrarily. The non-party's expression of intent to conclude the insurance contract against the plaintiffs constitutes a declaration of intention not to be a true intention made for his own interest against the interests and will of the defendant company. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the non-party's expression of intent to conclude the insurance contract was not a serious intention if the plaintiffs paid normal attention to the plaintiffs.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment of the court below's finding of facts and judgment, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the declaration of intention of the truth, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

The finding of facts as to the degree of negligence of the parties involved in a tort and determining the ratio thereof are the sole authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da34426, Jan. 10, 2003; 2005Da8125, Jul. 8, 2005). In light of all the circumstances in the records, the finding of facts as to the degree of negligence of the parties involved in the tort and determining the ratio thereof are not recognized as being considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal that causes the error is not acceptable.

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)