[1] The meaning of "as to the execution of affairs" under Article 756 of the Civil Code

[2] The case holding that the company's employer liability is recognized on the ground that the act of endorsement on a promissory note under the name of the company was the same as that falling within the scope of business to assist the obligor in paying the price for the goods in cash

[1] The purport of Article 756 of the Civil Code is that the act falls under the scope of the employee's duty, but in principle, the act should be viewed as including the act that appears to fall under the scope of the employee's duty, even if it is not the employee's act of performing his duty, and also falls under the scope of the employee's duty.

[2] The case holding that the director of the company's branch office is liable for the employer by deeming that the act of endorsement on a promissory note under the company's name was the same as that belonging to the scope of business to assist the debtor in paying the price for the goods in cash

[1] Article 756 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 756 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Da10531 Decided February 28, 1984 (Gong1984, 575) (Gong1984, 575) decided August 13, 1985 (Gong1985, 1232), Supreme Court Decision 92Da10531 Decided July 28, 1992 (Gong192, 2640)

Korean Water Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Ho-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Neglect and corporation

Busan District Court Decision 96Na5053 delivered on April 17, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. First, we examine the defendant's grounds for appeal.

As a matter of principle, the purport of Article 756 of the Civil Code is that the act should be an act that falls under the scope of employee's duties, but even if the act of employee's performance of duties is not itself, it should be understood that the act includes an act that appears to fall under the scope of employee's duties. In this case, as legally determined by the court below, the non-party 2, who entered into an agency contract with the defendant, attempted to receive promissory notes from others and pay for the defendant with the goods to the defendant. However, the non-party 1, who is the head of the defendant's racing branch, demanded the payment in cash, so the above non-party 2 requested the discount of the promissorysory note to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff requested the endorsement of the other self-employed person. Thus, the above non-party 2 requested the above non-party 1 to make an endorsement at his own discretion, and if most of the discounted amount received from the plaintiff, the act of the non-party 1 constitutes a considerable relation to the non-party 1's duties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the employer's liability against the defendant is just, and the judgment of the court below does not contain an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relationship of office performance in the employer's liability, such as the theory of lawsuit

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in tort damages belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In light of the records, it is acceptable that the court below set the ratio of negligence of the plaintiff as a whole 40% based on facts as stated in its holding, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to comparative negligence in the judgment of the court below. It is without merit

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)