logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2020.02.12 2019가단112089
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C shall be 37,700,000 won and a rate of 12% per annum from October 19, 2019 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Claim against Defendant C

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by service based on which recognition is applicable (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. Accordingly, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 37,700,000 due to tort and damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 19, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The phrase "in relation to the execution of an employee's business", which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code establishing the employer's liability, means that an employee's unlawful act is objectively deemed to be an act related to the employee's business activities or the performance of affairs, or an act related thereto, without considering subjective circumstances. Here, whether it is objectively related to the employee's performance of affairs should be determined by considering the degree of the employee's inherent duty and tort, the degree of the employee's occurrence of damage, and the degree of the employee's responsibility for creating risks and failing to take preventive measures. Even in cases where the employee's unlawful act appears to fall within the scope of external execution of affairs, if the victim himself/herself knew, or was unable to know, due to gross negligence, that the employee's act does not fall within the scope of the employer's or the supervisor'

In this case, gross negligence means that the other party to the transaction could have known the fact that the other party to the transaction would not have been lawfully engaged in the act within his official authority if he had paid a little attention.

arrow