[1] Whether an employee constitutes an “agent, employee, or other worker” as provided by Article 100(1) of the Road Act (Joint Penal Provisions) in a transportation business in the form of a land entry system (affirmative)

[2] Whether a corporation, which is a party to a joint penal provision of the Road Act, is punished due to negligence of neglecting the duty of due care or management and supervision in relation to the business of a party to a loan agreement (affirmative), and the standard for determining the existence of such negligence in specific cases

[1] Article 100 (1) of the Road Act / [2] Article 100 (1) of the Road Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14605 Decided April 15, 2010 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3073 Decided September 2, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1989) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3858 Decided July 10, 2008 (Gong2009Do5302 Decided September 24, 2009)

Defendant corporation

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 2009No1690 Decided August 28, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 100 (1) of the Road Act provides that "If a representative, agent, employee or any other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Articles 96 through 99 in connection with the business of the corporation, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions: Provided, That this shall not apply where such corporation has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such offence."

In cases where a trucking business operator who holds a trucking transport business license and a trucking business operator actually own a motor vehicle belong to a trucking business operator after being registered in the name of the trucking business operator, and each borrower conducts business on his/her own management and account, and in cases of a transport business in the form of a transportation business in which he/she pays a fare to a trucking business operator, even though the landing borrower entered into a transportation contract in his/her name while directly operating and managing an independent motor vehicle after having registered his/her business in the tax office, the landing owner constitutes “agent, employee, or other worker” as provided by Article 100(1) of the Road Act, and is objectively or externally delegated by the contract with the landing company that is the owner of the motor vehicle, and is in the position of acting for the operation and management of the motor vehicle, the purpose of the contract should be determined to punish the actual violation of the Act as well as to whether the actual violation of the Act was committed by the landing owner as well as to whether the actual violation of the Act was committed.

In light of these legal principles and records, it is proper that the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the application of the above joint penal provisions is improper based on the facts as stated in its decision, which are recognized as a comprehensive consideration of the adopted evidence, and found the defendant guilty, and there is no error of law such as the validity of joint penal provisions under the Road Act, the misapprehension of legal principles as to negligence in the supervision of the corporation, the incomplete hearing, or the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)