金融機關의 使用者責任에 관한 硏究 - 대법원 2007. 9.20. 선고, 2004다43866 판결을 중심으로 -

A person (hereinafter “Employer”) who hires other individual (hereinafter “Employee”) to engage in certain business is liable to indemnify a third party for any damage the Employee causes to the third party in association with the business (Paragraph 1, Article 756, Civil Act), which is called as “Employer’s Liability”. It may be said that the practical justification of employers’ liability is to protect victims. Employer’s liability is characterized by the liabilities for a tort by other individual and without the employer’s direct negligence. Employer’s liability has the significance as it serves as the basis of corporate liabilities. Companies employ many employees in order to conduct its corporate activities. It is fair that a company should indemnify a third party for the damage any employee caused to the third party in the course of such activities. Furthermore, it is advantageous to the victim in receiving damages to relate to the company rather than to related to an employee who does not have sufficient funds. It is the opinions of the court and most dominant theorists that the provisions of Article 756 of Civil Act should apply not only to the employment of domestic workers, but also to the employment of corporate employees since the Civil Act does not have any special provisions that govern general liabilities of companies, and that the legal basis that a victim can be paid sufficient damages lies in the operation of Article 756. This paper will review legal theories regarding the employer’s liability and analyze and ealuate the legal theory presented in the judgment with a focus on one of the Supreme court’s recent judgments wherein some employees of the indemnifying company and the indemnified company misappropriated deposits of the indemnified company, in collusion with each other, unlike common cases that occurred in relation to the existing employer’s liability.