logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.07.23 2013다4753
불법행위에 의한 손해배상(기)
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles as to the first ground of appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff on the grounds stated in its reasoning alone was insufficient to recognize that the sales contract for the instant automobile was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, where an employee's tort appears to fall within the scope of execution of business by appearance, if the victim himself/herself knew, or was unaware of the fact that the employee's act does not constitute an act of performance of business by the supervisor in lieu of the employer or employer, the employer's liability may not be imposed on the employee, instead of the employer or the supervisor in lieu of the employer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da43886, Sept. 20, 2007). In this case, the gross negligence refers to the situation where it was known that the other party to the transaction would not have lawfully performed his/her duties within his/her authority, even though he/she was aware that the other party to the transaction would not have done his/her act within the scope of his/her official authority, and it is deemed that there is no need to protect the other party from the perspective of fairness.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 25,700,000 to C, a business employee of the Defendant, as the sales contract amount of the instant vehicle, on November 24, 2011, based on the reasons indicated in its holding, even if the Plaintiff transferred the said money to C, a business employee of the Defendant, as the sales contract amount of the instant vehicle, for reasons indicated in its holding.

arrow