beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After filing an appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the following, except for the addition of the judgment of the preliminary claim in the trial:
(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff did not enter into a consulting agreement with the content that the payment guarantee clause of this case would pay 2 billion won to B if the plaintiff did not add the payment guarantee clause of this case to the business agreement of this case (the evidence No. 2 of this case). However, since I and G did not obtain the defendant's approval, the plaintiff entered into a consulting agreement with B with B, and without the defendant's authority and without the defendant's approval, the plaintiff is liable for damages that the plaintiff paid 2 billion won to B. The defendant is liable for compensation for the above damages to the plaintiff according to the employer's responsibility. 2) The defendant's assertion was due to gross negligence that the plaintiff knew or was not aware that he did not have the right to prepare this case's business agreement at the time of the preparation of the business agreement of this case. Thus, the defendant is not liable to the defendant
B. Even in cases where a tort committed by an employee of the relevant legal doctrine doctrine appears to fall under the scope of the execution of affairs by appearance, if the victim himself/herself knew, or was unaware due to gross negligence, that the act committed by an employee does not constitute an execution of affairs by the supervisor on behalf of the employer or employer, the employer is not liable.
On the other hand, the victim's gross negligence exempted from the employer's liability is almost close to the victim's intentional breach of the duty of care required by the general public by believing that the employee's act was an act within his/her authority, although he/she could have known that it was not lawfully performed within his/her authority if he/she exercised his/her care.