Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Victim's gross negligence and the corporation's exemption from liability
Supreme Court, July 25, 2024, 2024Da229343 (judgment)
Case name: 보증금[민법 제35조 제1항에 따른 손해배상청구에서 피해자의 악의 또는 중과실 인정 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a corporation's representative causes loss to another by an act that is not a duty act, is the corporation exempt from liability in damages under Article 35(1) of the Civil Act when the victim knew that fact or was grossly negligent in not knowing it, and what does gross negligence mean?
Holding
The corporation is not liable where the victim knew that the representative's act was not a duty act, or was grossly negligent in not knowing it. Gross negligence means falling so far short of the care an ordinary person would take that it approaches intent, leaving no reason in fairness to protect the counterparty. Whether the victim knew or was grossly negligent is decided by weighing together several circumstances, including the counterparty's ability to perceive the breach of a statutory restriction, its experience or position, the parties' prior dealings, and the nature and content of the act.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
한편 그 대표자의 행위가 직무에 관한 행위에 해당하지 아니함을 피해자 자신이 알았거나 또는 중대한 과실로 인하여 알지 못한 경우에는 법인에 손해배상책임을 물을 수 없고, 여기서 중대한 과실이라 함은 거래의 상대방이 조금만 주의를 기울였더라면 대표자의 행위가 그 직무권한 내에서 적법하게 행하여진 것이 아니라는 사정을 알 수 있었음에도 만연히 이를 직무권한 내의 행위라고 믿음으로써
Unofficial English translation
Meanwhile, where the victim himself or herself knew that the act of the representative did not constitute an act pertaining to the representative's duties, or failed to know this due to gross negligence, liability for damages cannot be imposed on the corporation (juristic person), and 'gross negligence' here means that, although the counterparty to the transaction, had it exercised only a little care, could have known the circumstances that the representative's act had not been lawfully performed within the scope of the representative's authority, the counterparty, without any inquiry, believed it to be an act within the scope of the representative's authority, thereby
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 제1 예비적 청구에 관한 피고 패소 부분과 제2 예비적 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant's losing part on the first alternative claim and the portion concerning the second alternative claim are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
법인 대표자의 행위가 직무에 관한 행위에 해당하지 아니함을 피해자 자신이 알았거나 또는 중대한 과실로 인하여 알지 못한 경우인지를 판단할 때에는 그 행위가 법령상의 제한을 위반한 것인지에 대한 상대방의 인식가능성, 상대방의 경험이나 지위, 쌍방의 종래의 거래관계, 당해 행위의 성질과 내용 등을 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In determining whether the victim himself or herself knew that the act of a corporation's representative did not constitute an act pertaining to the representative's duties, or failed to know this due to gross negligence, comprehensive consideration must be given to the counterparty's ability to recognize whether the act violated restrictions under statutes and regulations, the counterparty's experience and status, the prior course of dealing between the parties, the nature and content of the act in question, and other matters.
Factors
- 그 행위가 법령상의 제한을 위반한 것인지에 대한 상대방의 인식가능성
- 상대방의 경험이나 지위
- 쌍방의 종래의 거래관계
- 당해 행위의 성질과 내용
Unofficial English translation
• The counterparty's ability to recognize whether the act violated restrictions under statutes and regulations
• The counterparty's experience and status
• The prior course of dealing between the parties
• The nature and content of the act in question
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2008. 1. 18. 선고 2005다34711 판결(공2008상, 220)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2005Da34711 decided January 18, 2008 (Gong 2008 Sang, 220)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2008. 1. 18. 선고 2005다34711 판결(공2008상, 220)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
For a counterparty with no experience of urban development projects and no position as a member of the association, would failing to check the association's articles still be gross negligence?
The remand judgment of the Daejeon High Court, once it re-examines whether the plaintiff knew or was grossly negligent, will show how the four circumstances are applied on this record. Any amendment to Article 35(1) of the Civil Act, Article 15(3) of the Urban Development Act or its Enforcement Decree, or a later decision applying these factors to a counterparty who lacks experience or is not a member, would require reading this entry again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon High Court, in its judgment of 21 February 2024 (2021Na51915), held that each joint and several guarantee contract was an act of the chairperson in his representative capacity by its outward appearance, even though it had no direct connection with the defendant's project. It also held that the plaintiff could not be found to have known, or to have been grossly negligent in not knowing, that under Article 15(3) of the Urban Development Act, Article 35(iii) of its Enforcement Decree and Article 22 of the defendant's articles a general meeting resolution was required for borrowing, so it rejected the defendant's defence and found liability under Article 35(1) of the Civil Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the court below's finding that the guarantees were duty acts, since the court below had not failed to examine what was needed and had not misread the law on the scope of a representative's duties. On the exemption it held that the court below had misunderstood the law on the victim's bad faith or gross negligence and had failed to examine necessary matters: the plaintiff was a company of some 27 years' standing with expertise in urban maintenance projects, held a member's position when the defendant convened its temporary general meetings, and its architect representative could readily have checked the statutory restrictions, required by the Enforcement Decree as amended on 30 June 2003 and since publicly known, as well as the defendant's articles, before agreeing to an indirect transaction with companies related to the chairperson. It therefore reversed the part of the judgment against the defendant on the first alternative claim and the whole of the second alternative claim, and remanded the case to the Daejeon High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the victim in fact knew that the representative's act fell outside his duties.
- A case falling short of gross negligence, where the victim showed less than the care an ordinary person would take but not a deficiency of care approaching intent.
- A case in which the counterparty could not reasonably have perceived the breach of a statutory restriction, so that checking the provision was not expected of it.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the four circumstances the Court named, in the order it used them: how far the victim could have perceived the breach of a statutory restriction, its experience or position, the parties' prior dealings, and the nature and content of the act. The Court also treated Supreme Court Decision 2003Da15280, on which the court below relied, as a different case unsuitable for citation here, so check whether that decision is being relied on in your matter.
From the official text
Points at issue
법인의 대표자의 행위가 직무에 관한 행위에 해당하지 아니함을 피해자 자신이 알았거나 또는 중대한 과실로 인하여 알지 못한 경우, 법인에 손해배상책임을 물을 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 이때 ‘중대한 과실’의 의미 및 이를 판단할 때 고려하여야 할 사항
Unofficial English translation
Whether liability for damages may be imposed on a corporation (juristic person) where the victim himself or herself knew that the act of the corporation's representative did not constitute an act pertaining to the representative's duties, or failed to know this due to gross negligence (negative) / The meaning of 'gross negligence' in this context and the matters to be considered in determining it
Summary of the holding
법인의 대표자가 직무에 관하여 타인에게 손해를 가한 경우 그 법인은 민법 제35조 제1항에 의하여 그 손해를 배상할 책임이 있고, 대표자의 행위가 대표자 개인의 사리를 도모하기 위한 것이었거나 혹은 법령의 규정에 위반된 것이었다고 하더라도 외관상 객관적으로 직무에 관한 행위라고 인정할 수 있는 것이라면 민법 제35조 제1항의 직무에 관한 행위에 해당한다. 한편 그 대표자의 행위가 직무에 관한 행위에 해당하지 아니함을 피해자 자신이 알았거나 또는 중대한 과실로 인하여 알지 못한 경우에는 법인에 손해배상책임을 물을 수 없고, 여기서 중대한 과실이라 함은 거래의 상대방이 조금만 주의를 기울였더라면 대표자의 행위가 그 직무권한 내에서 적법하게 행하여진 것이 아니라는 사정을 알 수 있었음에도 만연히 이를 직무권한 내의 행위라고 믿음으로써 일반인에게 요구되는 주의의무를 현저히 위반하는 것으로 거의 고의에 가까운 정도의 주의를 결여하고, 공평의 관점에서 상대방을 구태여 보호할 필요가 없다고 봄이 상당하다고 인정되는 상태를 말한다. 법인 대표자의 행위가 직무에 관한 행위에 해당하지 아니함을 피해자 자신이 알았거나 또는 중대한 과실로 인하여 알지 못한 경우인지를 판단할 때에는 그 행위가 법령상의 제한을 위반한 것인지에 대한 상대방의 인식가능성, 상대방의 경험이나 지위, 쌍방의 종래의 거래관계, 당해 행위의 성질과 내용 등을 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결 중 제1 예비적 청구에 관한 피고 패소 부분과 제2 예비적 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant's losing part on the first alternative claim and the portion concerning the second alternative claim are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Provisions referred to
민법 제35조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger