logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.23 2014나15196
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, in addition to the cases where the court of first instance added the judgment as to the contents additionally claimed in the court of first instance or the following:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. The part written by the court of first instance, among the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, shall consist of the following parts from the 6th to the 8 second half:

As to the assertion of employer's liability (A) The meaning of "management of affairs," which is the requirement for employer's liability under Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act, is, in principle, an act belonging to the scope of employee's duty. However, even if an employee's performance of duty is not itself, an act that appears to fall within the scope of employee's duty, it shall be included in the appearance of the act. If an employee's tort objectively appears to fall within the appearance of an employee's business activity or performance of duties, or related thereto, it shall be deemed an act of performing duties without considering the actor's subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to an employee's performance of duties should be determined by taking into account the degree of the employee's inherent duties and tort, the degree of the employee's occurrence of risks to the employee's damage, and the degree of the employee's responsibility for lack of preventive measures. In such a case, if an employee abused his position without complying with the employer's specific order or delegation and promoting the interests of himself or a third party, denying employer's liability depending on subjective circumstances of the employer's intent or intent (see Supreme Court Decision 200.

arrow