Requirements for the recognition of an employer relationship under Article 756 of the Civil Act between the company which entered the land and the transferee of the vehicle;

In addition to a simple entrustment of the management and operation of a vehicle between a local government-invested company and its local government-invested company, the employer relationship under Article 756 of the Civil Act exists, and thus, the employer relationship between the local government-invested company and the transferee of the local government-invested vehicle can be acknowledged. However, if the local government-invested company and the transferee of the local government-invested vehicle intend to recognize the above employer relationship, it is insufficient for the above transferee to take over the local government-invested vehicle between the local government-invested company and the transferee of the local government-invested vehicle, and it should be recognized that the local government-invested company actually is in a position to actually supervise the above transferee by succeeding the status of the local government

Article 756 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Sam Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na39605 delivered on January 30, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above non-party 1 was the driver of the above truck of this case who was sold by the above non-party 3 to the above non-party 2's office, and the non-party 3 was deceased because the non-party 1 was carrying the above non-party 3's remaining office at once, and the non-party 2 was not responsible for the above non-party 3's management and operation of the above vehicle to prevent the above non-party 3's loss by taking the above non-party 3's office's accident, and the non-party 3 was not responsible for the above non-party 2's management and operation of the non-party 3's above vehicle's remaining office after being charged with the non-party 2's above accident, and the non-party 3 was not responsible for the above non-party 2's management and operation of the non-party 3's above vehicle's remaining office after being charged with the above non-party 3's above accident.

2. However, even if an employer relationship under Article 756 of the Civil Act exists as well as a simple relationship of direction and supervision of vehicle management and operation between the defendant company, a branch company, and its branch owner, and it is acknowledged that there is an employer relationship under the above-mentioned employment relationship between the defendant company and the non-party 3, the transferee of the instant branch office, if the above non-party 3 intends to recognize the above employment relationship between the defendant company and the non-party 3, who is the transferee of the instant branch office, it should be recognized that it is insufficient for the above non-party 3 to take over the vehicle between the main owner company and the defendant company, and that the defendant company is in the position to actually direct and supervise the above non-party 3

However, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 6-30, 43, the testimony of non-party 4, and the statements in Gap evidence 6-20, which were not rejected by the court below, the above non-party 3 purchased the land of this case from non-party 2, who used it to the non-party company Incheon Incheon branch office and to dispatch it to the non-party company's brokerage. The non-party company paid the remainder to the above non-party 3 after paying the expenses, including the driver's salary, and deducting 10% of the external revenue from the fee. After the above non-party 3 received the above land of this case, the non-party 3 paid the above land of this case in the name of non-party 5, the representative director of the non-party company who is not the above non-party 3, and there is no evidence to prove that the above land of this case was paid to the defendant company under the non-party 3's name.

If the facts are as above, even if the defendant company takes over the land of this case by the above non-party 3, it was aware of the fact that the land admission fee was paid by the non-party 5, the representative director of the non-party company. However, unless there is any special circumstance, the defendant company received the land entry fee in the purport that the non-party 5, the person who is the title holder of the land entry, is recognized as the assignee of the land entry vehicle, and consented to the succession of the land entry relationship to the person, and it is difficult to view that the land entry fee was received from the purport that the land entry relationship with the above non-party 3 is accepted. Thus, there is no room to deem that the land entry relationship with the defendant company was succeeded to the above non-party 3.

Although the court below should have judged the existence of employer relations between the defendant company and the above non-party 3 by taking a more detailed examination of the evidence and the facts above, the court below erred in the judgment of the value of evidence and the decision of the value of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment through insufficient deliberation, and there are reasonable grounds for the argument on this point.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)