logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.03.26 2013다210497
손해배상(기)
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the responsibility of the Korea Electric Power Corporation under the Commercial Act, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. (1) The lower court determined that the Defendant does not constitute an agent under Article 401-2 (1) 1 of the Commercial Act, in view of the following: (a) the act of calculating the rate of increase in the electric utility rates in advance and notifying the Korea Electric Power Corporation to the Korea Electric Power Corporation may be deemed to fall under the administrative guidance on the electric utility rates within the scope under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Knowledge Economy prior to exercising the right to authorize it; and (b) insofar as the Minister of Knowledge Economy recognizes the authority to provide administrative guidance on the electric utility rates based on the right to authorize it, it is difficult to readily conclude

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the responsibility of an agent.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the Defendant’s violation of law or breach of duty, the lower court, even if so, constitutes a person who instructed the Defendant to perform duties under Article 401-2(1)1.

Even in light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the Defendant cannot be determined to have violated the statute, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant neglected his/her duties.

This part of the judgment of the court below is merely a decision on the propriety of family register, and as seen earlier, the judgment of the court below that the defendant does not constitute an executive instruction under Article 401-2 (1) 1 of the Commercial Act is just and just.

arrow