The tort committed by an employee appears to fall under the scope of the execution of administrative affairs. However, in cases where the victim knew or did not know by gross negligence that the employee's act does not constitute an execution of administrative affairs, whether the employer's liability is recognized (negative) and the meaning of "victim's gross negligence", which is the reason for

Article 756 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Kang Shin-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Kang-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na85811 decided April 30, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the main claim

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff and the defendant formed a deposit contract on the cashier's checks of this case, on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff delivered the checks of this case to the non-party with the intention to protect the checks of this case and received the certificates of this case, in light of the following: (a) as to the plaintiff's assertion that the deposit contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the cashier's checks of this case, the acceptance of the checks as a specific object by the financial institution was extremely exceptional; and (b) since the defendant's counter work was not finished at the time of the preparation of the custody certificate of this case; and (c) there was considerable interest in the case of deposit during the 10-day storage period as stated in the custody certificate of this case; and (d) in light of the records, the plaintiff's intention to protect the checks of this case was to receive

2. As to the conjunctive claim

Even in cases where a tort committed by an employee appears to fall within the scope of an employer’s external execution of business affairs, if the victim himself/herself knew, or was unable to know, due to gross negligence, that the act of an employee does not constitute an act of performing the business affairs of the supervisor in lieu of the employer or employer, the employer shall not be held liable. The gross negligence here refers to a situation in which the other party to the transaction has clearly violated the duty of care required by the general public by believing that the act of an employee was conducted within his/her authority and authority, notwithstanding the fact that the other party to the transaction could have known that the act was not lawfully performed within his/her authority and authority if he/she had paid a little attention (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da584

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party is liable for damages as the employer of the non-party. According to the facts of the judgment, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party knew that the non-party's act of preparing a custody certificate was not an act of execution of the defendant's business or did not have been lawfully performed within his official authority even though he knew that the non-party's act did not constitute an act of execution of the defendant's business, or he knew that it was not lawfully performed within his official authority. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to mistake of facts or user responsibility due to a violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete hearing.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)