Where an employer has compensated the victim for a tort committed by an employee, the scope of the employer’s indemnity against the employee.

The amount of compensation that can be claimed to the employee after the employer compensates the victim for the damages caused by the illegal act regarding the execution of the employee's affairs, is the amount that the employer actually paid to the victim within the extent of the amount that the victim can claim compensation.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Daewoo Investment Finance Corporation

Defendant 1 and two others

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 1 shall pay the amount of 157,957,743 won and the amount of 5 percent per annum from January 29, 1987 to September 28 of the same year, and the amount of 25 percent per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and

B. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 shall pay the amount of KRW 20,00,000 among the amount described in paragraph (a) jointly and severally with Defendant 1, and the amount at the rate of 25 percent per annum from January 29, 1987 to March 10, 198.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant 2 and 3 are all dismissed.

3. The part of the litigation cost arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is seven minutes, and the part arising between the plaintiff, the plaintiff 2, and the defendant 3 is six minutes, and the remainder is borne by the plaintiff, and by the above defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

As to Defendant 1, the same judgment as the disposition, and as to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, the same defendant et al. shall pay the above amount of KRW 143,170,000 among the above amount and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from January 29, 1987 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and the amount of money at the rate of 25% per annum from the following day to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1

The plaintiff is the cause of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1. It is the fact that on November 7, 1984, the defendant deposited the plaintiff's funds with the non-party 1, who is a customer of the plaintiff company, for the purpose of acquiring the money from the non-party 1, who was employed in the business of the plaintiff company, the defendant would purchase a new-type corporate bill with the highest interest rate out of the goods of the non-party, and its membership is 16,180,000 won on February 27, 1986 as the purchase price of the bill from the non-party, and 17,100,000 won on May 23, 198, and received 276,450,000 won on three occasions without paying the plaintiff's money, and the plaintiff did not claim that the non-party, who was the above defendant's employee, was paid the above defendant's money to the non-party for the above defendant's payment of 200,000 won,000 won.

If the facts are as above, the amount of damages that the plaintiff suffered from the tort regarding the execution of defendant 1's work by his employee shall be the amount that the plaintiff actually paid to the plaintiff within the scope of the amount that the non-party can claim compensation to the plaintiff. The amount of damages that the non-party can claim to the plaintiff shall be 248,805,000 (276,450,000 won x 90/1000) considering the non-party's negligence caused by the non-party's loss, and the amount of 180,000,000 won actually paid to the non-party is within its scope. Accordingly, the defendant 1 is obligated to pay 157,957,743 won after deducting the amount of damages paid to the plaintiff from the amount of 180,000,000,000 won.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2 and 3

The plaintiff shall be paid KRW 10 (Judgment), KRW 6, KRW 10-2, KRW 7 (No. 10-1; hereinafter the same shall apply), KRW 8-3, 4, and 5 (No. 10-1; hereinafter the same shall apply), KRW 7 of the same No. 9-3 (No. 2), KRW 9-3 (No. 2), KRW 2-3 (No. 10), KRW 10 of the above No. 10, KRW 70, KRW 80, KRW 10, KRW 70, KRW 80, KRW 10, KRW 70, KRW 80, KRW 10, KRW 80, KRW 10, KRW 80, KRW 10, KRW 40, KRW 80, KRW 198, KRW 86, KRW 198, and KRW 10,000, KRW 7,000, KRW 10,000).

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant 2 and 3, based on the above facts of recognition, are liable to guarantee the damage suffered by the plaintiff as the guarantor, because the defendant 1, who is the identity principal, obtained money 143,170,000 won from the non-party 1 on November 8, 1984, which is within the period of guarantee of identity, is liable to pay the above amount to the same defendant, etc.

일반적으로, 사용자가 피용자의 사무집행에 관한 불법행위로 인하여 손해를 입은 피해자에게 그 손해를 배상해 준 다음 피용자에게 구상할 수 있는 금액은 피해자가 사용자에게 배상청구할 수 있는 금액범위내에서 사용자가 피해자에게 현실적으로 지급한 금원이라할 것이므로 먼저 소외인이 원고에게 배상청구할 수 있는 범위에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 든 증거들에 의하면 소외인은 원고회사와 1982.10.경부터 거래를 하여 최고 60억 원까지 예치한 바 있는 대고객으로 금리가 하향조정되자 1984.9.14.경 거래를 끊었다가 같은 해 11.7. 원고회사 부근의 노상에서 만난 피고 1로부터 다시 투자할 것을 권유받고 3회에 걸쳐 위 어음매수자금을 교부하게 되었는데 위 피고는 위 돈이 원고회사에 정상적으로 입금되는 것으로 소외인을 속이기 위하여 소외인으로부터 어음매수자금을 교부받을 때마다 원고회사사무실에 보관되어 있던 유가증권보관통장을 이용하여 그 표지에 주인된 양도성 정기예금의 약자 "CD"를 빨간색 사인펜을 사용하여 CP로 고쳐서 만든 수기통장을 교부하였던 사실, 소외인으로서는 위와 같이 원고회사와 거래한 경험이 많은 사람으로서 위 돈을 예치하면서 받은 통장에 주인된 글씨가 빨간색 사인펜으로 변조된 것이었고 전산처리통장이 아닌 수기통장이었으므로 위 돈이 원고회사에 정식으로 입금되지 않고 위 피고가 편취 내지는 유용하려 한다는 점을 눈치챌 수도 있었을 것임에도 불구하고 부주의로 이를 알지 못한 과실이 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는 바 위 손해의 발생에는 소외인이 위와 같은 과실도 경합되어 있다 할 것이나 이는 원고의 피고 1의 사용자로서 소외인에 대한 배상책임을 면하게 할 정도에는 이르지 아니하고 그 배상책임의 범위를 정함에 있어서만 이를 참작하면 족하다 할 것인데 위 인정사실에 나타난 편취경위 등 여러가지 사정에 비추어 보면 소외인의 과실비율은 10퍼센트로 봄이 상당하다 할 것이므로 소왼인이 원고에게 피고 1의 1984.11.8.자 불법행위를 원인으로 하여 배상을 청구할 수 있는 손해의 범위는 금 128,853,000원(143,170,000원×9/10)이 된다 할 것이다.

Next, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1’s compensation for the Nonparty’s act of defraudation of KRW 180,170,000 on November 8, 1984, which was paid by the Plaintiff to the Nonparty as compensation for the total amount of KRW 276,450,000, which was acquired through three times by the Plaintiff and agreed to be exempted from the Plaintiff’s remaining liability, was paid to Defendant 1 as compensation for the amount of KRW 180,000 on three occasions, barring any special circumstance. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1’s compensation for the Nonparty’s act of defraudation of KRW 143,170,000 on three occasions, and the amount of damages that the Plaintiff paid to the Nonparty falls under 180,170,000,000,000 won, KRW 276,450,000 on three occasions and KRW 180,000 on three occasions,00,000.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received from Defendant 1 a reimbursement of KRW 22,042,257 as compensation for the above illegal act, but did not specify the satisfaction at that time. Thus, according to the order of statutory appropriation for performance, this would have been appropriated for damages for the illegal act committed on November 8, 1984, which first became the maturity of the damages for which the payment was due, out of the damages for the illegal act committed on the three occasions. The deduction would have led to Defendant 1’s remainder of KRW 71,17,493 ( KRW 93,219,750-22,042,257) as compensation for the illegal act committed on November 8, 1984.

Furthermore, according to the facts that Defendant 2 and 3 did not know of the above facts as to the scope of Defendant 1’s fidelity Guarantee, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 2-5, and Eul evidence 2-7, each of the above facts that the above facts were not known to the defendant 2 and the defendant 2-3-2, and the above facts that the defendant knew of the above facts were not known to the defendant 1-2 and the defendant 2-3-1-6, and the defendant 2-1-6, Eul evidence 8-7, each of the above facts that were known to the defendant 1-2 and the defendant 2-6-1-6 of the above facts that were not known to the defendant 2-6-6, and the defendant's above facts that were known to the defendant 1-2 and the defendant 2-6-6's above facts that were known to the defendant 1-6, as to the above facts that were known to the defendant 2-1-6, and the defendant 1-2-6-3-6.

The above defendants asserted that the defendant 1's claim of this case, which was sought in the absence of the above amount, can not be confirmed as it is unfair because the defendant 2 and 3 agreed to jointly and severally compensate with the defendant 1, who is the identity of the defendant 1 in the present case, because the defendant 1 could not refuse to pay the fidelity guarantor on the ground that he had property to be executed with the defendant 1 when he provides the fidelity guarantee, and that the plaintiff has not yet recovered the amount of money actually after the execution of the defendant 1's property is the defendant 1's own property, since it is obvious that the plaintiff's lawsuit against the non-party 3 is pending such as the cancellation of fraudulent act, etc. against the non-party 3, which was filed by the plaintiff, such as the cancellation of the plaintiff's fraudulent act under the Southern Branch Branch Court of Seoul District Court (Case No. 1 omitted).

3. Accordingly, as the plaintiff seeks from January 29, 1987 to September 28, 1987, the day following the day on which the plaintiff paid damages to the non-party 1 as the plaintiff's claim, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 29, 1987 to September 28, 1987, and at the rate of 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the full payment day. Defendant 2 and 3 are jointly and severally and severally with the defendant 1 to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20 million won per annum under the Civil Act from January 29, 1987 to March 10, 198, the above amount of damages for delay shall be paid to the non-party 1, and the remainder of the damages for delay shall be paid within the limit of 9% per annum under the above special cases. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 and the remaining damages for delay shall be dismissed.

Judges Yellow Sea (Presiding Judge)