Cases where a person responsible for the storage and management of a stolen accident is deemed to have gross negligence;

If a person who is responsible for keeping and managing another person's goods as a good manager does not impose a first or a minimum principle on him/her with regard to prevention of corruption, theft, and loss, this constitutes gross negligence on the ground that he/she lacks the good manager's care.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Communications Industry Cooperatives (Attorney Na-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 (Attorney Choi Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2141 delivered on February 2, 1978

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that "..... defendant 1 and defendant 2 did not have a custody warehouse of the plaintiff association, purchased more price in a lump sum than the required amount, and stored it in another warehouse or temporarily stored in the purchase line, and they did not take measures so that members may take over it directly, and they did not take measures to store it in the basement corridor of the above building where there was an office of the plaintiff association, which did not have a theft prevention facility, and they agreed not to hold the non-party 1 who had a building manager responsible for loss. However, if we review the record that the plaintiff association neglected the above articles for several months and neglected to monitor continuously, the above part of the original part is justified."

However, the court below erred in finding the above facts, but it did not consider Defendant 1's gross negligence (serious negligence) and judged it as a progress room. "Serious negligence" in private law, such as the Civil Act and the Commercial Act refers to "not lack of good manager's care", and "outstanding room" means "not lack of good manager's care". In addition, if a person responsible for the custody and management of another person's goods as a good manager first or at a minimum demand, he must be considered as a care for prevention of corruption, theft, and loss. However, even based on the above fact-finding, the court below should have determined that Defendant 1 does not have such a care, so even if he did not have gross negligence, so the court below should have determined that the above fact-finding person's ability to purchase and store the goods of this case as a senior managing director is not a direct and indirect manager's ability to purchase the goods of this case, and thus, it is not contradictory to the facts that the court below directly and indirectly held the goods of this case.

Next, the original judgment with respect to Defendant 2 was examined;

The court below held that there is no proximate causal relation between the above mistake before the retirement of the defendant and the theft of the article of this case on the ground that the stolen party of this case belongs to the post-retirement of the plaintiff's association, although the court below acknowledged the fact that defendant 2 was the chief of the general affairs of the plaintiff's association and the goods handler of the plaintiff's association, who is the goods handler of the plaintiff's association, neglected the due care of a good manager in keeping the article of this case.

However, in full view of the evidence of this case, the court below erred in holding that Defendant 2 cannot be held liable for negligence as above on the premise that Defendant 2 was completely discharged between the above two persons, on May 9, 1974, and on May 10, 195, the next day, in the procedure for handing over duties with Nonparty 2, the chief of the general affairs division, who is the successor, as the chief of the accounting division, as the successor, without taking measures, such as opposing the successor to improve the previous state of leaving the property of this case. However, the court below erred in holding that Defendant 2 cannot be held liable for negligence under the premise that the handover was completely performed.

If the theft of this case started on June 25, 1974, which was the first half of the month after the retirement of this case, and the defendant neglected to leave the goods of this case before retirement, and if we consider that there was a proximate causal relation between the negligence in the custody of the defendant 2 during the second half of the same month, and the negligence in the custody of the defendant 2 during the second half of the same month, and the relation between the theft of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below has affected the judgment due to the misapprehension of the legal principles as to negligence and the violation of the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice) since it is impossible to sign and seal as a two-way official overseas business trip by the judge of the Supreme Court, Yang Jong-ho Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)