사용자책임에서 사용자구상과 피용자책임에 관한 프랑스 판례의 동향

The art. 756 III of the Korean Civil Code expressly grants a recourse claim to the employer if she is vicarious liable for her employee's torts. Case law and doctrine are of the opinion that both are liable in solidum in such a case. However, the article of the Code with its interpretation leads to an inequitable result in that it shifts to the employee the damage costs which arise with the employer's expanded economic activity. The case law therefore limits the employer's recourse towards her employee by applying the good faith clause (art. 2 of the Korean Civil Code). But this approach cannot be said to be satisfying enough for the employee's protection. The author will contribute to the debate with a detailed analysis of the French case law. In particular it focuses on the development since the famous Costedoat case in the year of 2000. At the same time the author describes what he thinks has to be learned from the French experiences and submits his suggestions of lex ferenda about article 756 III of the Code.