A. The meaning of “in respect of the performance of affairs” under Article 756 of the Civil Act

(b) The case holding that an employee's act of violence has no relevance to performing his duties;

A. The meaning of “office performance”, which is an element for employer liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, is that when an employee’s unlawful act appears objectively to be related to the employee’s business activity, work execution, or work execution, it shall be deemed that the employee’s unlawful act without considering the actor’s subjective circumstances.

B. The case holding that it is reasonable to view that an employee's act of murdering against his own personality and body without relation to the execution of his duties employed by the employer, on the ground that the employee's act of murdering against his own personality and body, is committed in case where it is reasonable to deem that the employee's act of murdering, without relation to the performance of duties that he was employed by the employer, is committed in case where the employee's act of murdered, on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the employee's act of murdering against his own personality and body, on the ground that it cannot be viewed as an act related to the employer's performance of duties, even if he was objectively and objectively viewed as a appearance and objective.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 90Da8763 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1395) 92Da25939 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 2982). Supreme Court Decision 93Da15694 delivered on September 24, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2924)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The number of strong population and one other

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na8527 delivered on June 1, 1994

The part of the judgment below against the defendants shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 피고들은 전남 영광군 소재 초원의 집 레스토랑을 공동으로 경영하면서 소외 1을 위 레스토랑의 지배인으로, 소외 2를 종업원으로 각 고용한 사실, 소외 2는 고등학교 1학년에 다니면서 1992. 9. 7.부터 야간에만 일하기로 하고 위 레스토랑에 고용되어 손님에게 음식을 나르고 청소를 하는 일을 하여 오다가 이 사건 사고 당시에는 방학 중이어서 주간에도 근무를 하였던 사실, 소외 2는 1992. 12. 31. 15:00경 위 레스토랑에서 동인의 여자친구로부터 걸려 온 전화를 받고 있을 때, 소외 1이 동인에게 “이 새끼야 무슨 장난 전화질이야, 일을 하려면 똑바로 해"라고 욕설을 하면서 동인의 멱살을 잡고 얼굴을 밀어 바닥에 넘어지게 하자, 화가 나서 위 레스토랑을 뛰쳐 나와 배회하다가 같은 날 23:50경 위 레스토랑에 들어왔는데 마침 선배 종업원인 소외 정석찬이 동인을 불러 조금만 더 참고 일하라고 하며 타이르는 말을 듣고 있던 중 소외 1이 다시 그곳 카운터 앞에서 “이 새끼 선배를 뭘로 보느냐, 싸가지 없는 새끼야"라고 욕설을 하며 구듯발로 소외 2의 좌측 대퇴부를 1회 걷어 차자 격분하여 미리 소지하고 있던 과도로 소외 1의 훙부를 1회 찔러 소외 1으로 하여금 심장파열상으로 1993. 1. 1. 00:19경 사망하게 한 사실, 위 레스토랑은 이 사건 사고일에 24:00까지 영업을 하여 영업시간이 끝나기 전에 이 사건 사고가 발생한 사실, 원고들은 위 망인의 부모인 사실을 인정한 다음, 위 인정사실에 의하면 소외 2의 행위를 그의 사무집행 자체로 볼 수 없음은 분명하나, 한편 이는 소외 2가 위 레스토랑의 영업시간 중에 위 레스토랑 내에서 지배인인 소외 1로부터 근무시간에 성실하지 못하다는 질책을 받고 여기에 반발하여 발생한 것이어서 객관적으로 소외 2의 사무집행과 밀접하게 관련된 행위라고 보아야 할 것이고, 이와 같이 소외 2의 사무집행과 관련된 것이라고 보여질 때에는 행위자의 주관적 사정을 고려함이 없이(즉 소외 2가 보복적 감정으로 위의 행위를 하였다고 하더라도) 이를 사무집행에 관하여 한 행위로 보아야 할 것이므로 피고들은 각자 소외 2의 사용자로서 그의 불법행위로 인하여 위 망인 및 원고들이 입은 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 판단하였다.

2. Examining the relevant evidence based on the records, even if the court below examined the process of cooking the evidence which was conducted in recognizing the above facts, it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, or in misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, and therefore, it is not reasonable to charge the above fact-finding of the court below.

3. The phrase "in relation to the execution of affairs", which is the requirement for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that if an employee's unlawful act appears objectively to be related to the employee's business activity, work execution, or work execution, it shall be regarded as an act in relation to the execution of affairs without considering the actor's subjective circumstances, as stated by the court below.

However, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below as to this case, the non-party 2 got a private telephone from the non-party 1 and got a public bath and a stop for about 8 hours, and went into the above Lestop. In other words, the non-party 1 got a public bath and stop from the non-party 1, resulting in the death of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 caused the death. Thus, the non-party 2's above illegal act was committed in the business place of the defendants during the business hours of the above Lestop. However, it is reasonable to view that the non-party 2 committed the above murder without relation to the execution of affairs employed by the defendants, and it cannot be viewed that the non-party 2's illegal act of this case was committed against his own personality and body, and it cannot be viewed as an act related to the performance of business affairs of the user.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on employer liability, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below determined that the tort of this case by Nonparty 2 was an act related to the execution of business affairs, and thus, it is reasonable to point this out.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)