Whether the delegation relation can be seen as the relationship between the prescribed employer and the employee under Article 756 of the Civil Code

If it is merely a delegation of the affairs concerning the registration of ownership transfer of real estate to the delegated person, barring special circumstances, the delegated person shall act in his own discretion on his own as an independent person with respect to the delegated person, so the delegated person shall not be deemed to be an employee under the Civil Code Article 756, which is directed and supervised by the employer.

Articles 681 and 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap3564) in the first instance trial

(1) The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

(2) Costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 2,00,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from May 13, 1969 to the date of full payment.

(3) Judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials, and a declaration of provisional execution

1. The plaintiff was found to have purchased the above non-party 1's new real estate under the name of 196.9 and then purchased the above non-party 1's new real estate under the name of 2's own name and then purchased the above non-party 1's 5's 48's 76's 5's 1's 9's 9's 9's 9's 1's 9's 9's 1's 9's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 1's 6's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 1's 6's 9's 1's 1's 6's 9's 1's 1's 6''''''''''''''''' 6''' 1's 1'''''''''s 6'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''s 1'2'

Therefore, the defendant's relationship between the two persons at the time of issuance of the certificate of seal imprint and the certificate of seal imprint to the non-party 1 is a delegation relationship that the defendant deceptioned to the non-party 1 asked the non-party 1 to handle the ownership transfer registration of the defendant's future about the above real estate. Thus, the non-party 1, the delegated person, barring special circumstances, shall act in his own discretion against the defendant, who is the delegated person. Thus, the non-party 1 cannot be viewed as a relationship between the employer and the employee under Article 756 of the Civil Code, which is under the direction and supervision. Further, the non-party 1, who provided the above real estate as security, borrowed money from the plaintiff (the name of the borrowed name or the title of collateral or the title of collateral security, all of which were the non-party 1's own name), as an act unrelated to the registration of ownership transfer in the defendant's future, and there is no evidence to recognize that the non-party 1 as an employee of the defendant caused damage to the plaintiff.

2. In addition, since the plaintiff was negligent in issuing a certificate of seal impression which does not need to obtain the registration of ownership transfer of the purchased real estate, the non-party 1 could obtain the registration of ownership transfer under his own name, and the result was not immediately confirmed after handling the registration of ownership transfer, and the non-party 1 did not immediately confirm the result, and the plaintiff's opportunity to commit this act was provided. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that there is a substantial causal relationship between the defendant's series of negligence and the plaintiff's damage. The plaintiff's argument that the defendant's negligence in supervising the appointment of the employee as the employer is first, the defendant's duty to compensate for damages. Second, the defendant's exhibition negligence seems to be in conflict with the non-party 1's intention and thus constitutes a joint tort, and the defendant's failure to confirm the result of the registration after it was found that the non-party 1 did not have any unnecessary relation between the defendant and the non-party 1's joint tort and the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's allegation or the defendant's non-party 1's non-party 7.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection is without merit, and thus, the original judgment with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Justice)