logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.05.26 2015가단223650
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 91,358,312 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 3, 2015 to May 26, 2016.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned is not an act of assaulting A and inflicting an injury on A, but an act of performing an employee's affairs in an external and objective manner. The defendant is an employer of A and bears an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code.

Therefore, the plaintiff argues that the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of indemnity stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff, since he provided insurance benefits to B and subrogatedly acquired the right to claim damages against the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant is a tort unrelated to the execution of affairs, so it cannot be said that the defendant is liable for the employer, and it is not so.

Even if B used assaulting A and provided cause, B's negligence is more than 70%, and A's deposited for B shall be deducted or offset.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “in relation to the performance of an employee’s business,” which is an element for an employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, refers to “in relation to the performance of an employee’s business,” if the employee’s unlawful act objectively appears to be objectively related to the employee’s business activity, performance of an office, or performance of an employee’s business, without considering the employee’s subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the employee’s performance of an office should be determined by considering the degree of the employee’s inherent duty and tort, the degree of the employee’s occurrence

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da61377 Decided April 10, 2014). According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including a provisional number) and all pleadings, Eul has registered its business under the name of "C" and operates a sprink at the construction site of "C" and Gap is an employee of the defendant at the above construction site.

arrow