logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.09.12 2015다231139
물품대금
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim on the ground that (i) there is no valid guarantee consignment agreement, which serves as the premise for the Plaintiff’s claim, and (ii) each of the payment guarantee certificates that the Defendant C Branch Director prepared and issued to the Plaintiff under the name of D, the manager, was forged, and thus, the authenticity cannot be recognized; and (iii) other evidence alone alone, it is difficult to deem that D intended to guarantee the payment of the Defendant.

The judgment below

While there is no specific direct determination as to the Defendant’s assertion that there was gross negligence of the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff was unaware of the restriction on the power of representation in D, the lower court, in light of the purport of the lower judgment, acknowledged the Defendant’s assertion.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, some inappropriate points are found as a result.

In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the manager’s right of representation, establishment of authentic payment guarantee, and contractual interpretation, or omitting judgment.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1, where an employee’s illegal act appears to fall under the scope of execution of office work, but the victim himself was aware of, or did not know by gross negligence, that such act does not constitute an act of execution of office work by the supervisor in lieu of the employer or employer, the employer’s liability cannot be imposed against the employer or supervisor in lieu of the employer. The gross negligence here is concerned.

arrow