1. Each appeal filed by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is that the court of first instance added "in this case, it is "in accordance with Articles 750, 35, and 756 of the Civil Act" to "in addition, it shall be "in accordance with Articles 750, 35, and 756 of the Civil Act" to "(1) first, it shall be examined whether the defendant, a corporation, bears tort liability in accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Act.

Even if a juristic person has an organic substance, the specific activities are performed through the representative agency or employee, and our legal system also separates the tort liability in cases where the representative agency causes loss to another person due to the act of performing its duties (Article 35 of the Civil Act and Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act) and the employer liability in cases where the act of performing the duties of an employee causes loss to the other person (Article 756 of the Civil Act). In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, a juristic person, is liable for tort liability under Article 750

Unlike the opinion, it should be limited to cases where illegal acts have been committed on a systematic basis at the corporate level as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence to recognize that the defendant, as a legal person, was allowed to be represented through Byung in violation of the restriction on betting limit, so the plaintiff's above assertion is not correct in this regard.

② Next, we examine whether the Defendant bears tort liability under Article 35 of the Civil Act.

In the process of gambling at the Defendant’s casino business place, there is no argument or proof as to how the representative director of the Defendant committed an illegal act against the Plaintiff in relation to his duties. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not correct.

(3) Finally, the defendant is in accordance with Article 756 of the Civil Code.