Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff C shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked by the plaintiff C.

The reasoning of this court's acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance except for the following changes, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(Exclusion) The part of the first instance court’s decision (excluding the part in question) that changed is amended by the following: (a) the part of the first instance court’s decision “(8)(3)(14)(2)(3)(2)(3)(

“In order to establish an employer’s liability with respect to a tort of the relevant legal doctrine as to the occurrence of an employer’s liability, the relationship of use between the employer and the illegal person, i.e., the relationship of actual direction and supervision of the illegal person. In the case of delegation, the delegating person has a command and supervision relationship between the delegating person and the mandatary and where the act of the mandatary is objectively related to the performance of duties of the delegating person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da25500, Apr. 28, 1998). In addition, if an employee’s tort appears to be objectively related to an employer’s business activity or performance of duties, or the performance of duties, without considering the actor’s subjective circumstances, it is deemed that the employee’s tort was committed with respect to the performance of duties. Here, whether it is objectively related to the performance of duties of the employer should be determined by considering the degree of the employee’s inherent duties and the degree of damage caused to the employer, and the degree of lack of risk to the employer’s damages.