logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.01.26 2015가단17704
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff was working as the head of the music department at C University established and operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant University”) and was expected to employ full-time faculty members in music department in the instant university in 2015, and was demanded to pay the school development fund in order to be employed as a full-time faculty. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 in cash to D in the lestostoc in the Yandong-dong, Suwon-gu, Busan, Busan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that D, the director of the department of this case, deceiving the plaintiff and received 100,000,000 won as the school development fund in return for the employment of full-time teacher from the plaintiff, and caused damages equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant asserted that D, as D's employer, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above 100,000,000 won. Accordingly, the defendant's act of receiving 100,000,000 won from the plaintiff does not fall under the scope of the business execution of the director of the department of this case, and even if it is recognized that D is related to the above act, the plaintiff's act of receiving money in return for the employment of full-time teacher is illegal, and the plaintiff's act of receiving money can be said to have known, or failed to know it due to gross negligence, that the above act of receiving money does not fall under the business execution of the director of the department of this case. Thus, the defendant's employer's liability should be exempted.

B. The phrase “in relation to the performance of affairs,” which is the requirement for an employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, ought to be objectively deemed as an employee’s tort, such as an employer’s business activity or performance of affairs, or related thereto.

arrow