Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Local government employer liability for a contractor's care teacher's tort
Supreme Court, May 29, 2026, 2025Da219520 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)[지방자치단체가 다함께돌봄센터를 설치하여 민간단체에 운영을 위탁한 경우, 민간단체에 고용된 돌봄교사의 불법행위에 대하여 지방자치단체의 사용자책임이 인정되는지 여부가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a local government installs an after-school care centre and entrusts its operation to a nonprofit organisation, may the government bear employer liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act for a tort committed by a care teacher employed by that organisation?
Holding
It may. The employment relationship under Article 756 of the Civil Act does not require an employment contract or actual direction; it exists where, viewed objectively, a party is in a position to direct and supervise the other's performance of affairs, so an entrusting party may be liable for the torts of the contractor's employees as well as the contractor. Here the city was the statutory operator of the care centre, held contractual powers of management, supervision, document inspection and corrective orders, ran one centre itself, and, as its recruitment notices usually show, set hours, fees, staffing and costs in advance before entrusting operation, so it was objectively in a position of actual direction and supervision. The Court found no error in the courts below holding the care teacher's sexual assault connected with the centre's affairs and the asserted circumstances insufficient to show due care in supervising those affairs.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 위탁자가 위탁계약을 통하여 수탁자 및 그 피용자를 위탁자의 사무에 종사하게 하였고, 위탁자가 이들을 실질적으로 지휘·감독하여야 할 관계에 있는 경우, 수탁자뿐만 아니라 수탁자의 피용자와 위탁자 사이에서도 민법 제756조의 사용관계가 인정될 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where an entrustor has, through an entrustment contract, had the entrusted party and its employees engage in the entrustor's affairs, and the entrustor is in a relationship in which it is required to actually direct and supervise them, the relationship of use under Article 756 of the Civil Act may be recognized not only between the entrustor and the entrusted party but also between the entrustor and the employees of the entrusted party.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
등을 종합하면 다함께돌봄센터를 설치하여 그 운영을 위탁한 갑 지방자치단체는 자신의 활동영역을 확장한 것에 상응하는 지휘·감독을 하여야 하므로, 객관적으로 을 단체 및 소속 돌봄교사의 사무집행을 실질적으로 지휘·감독하여야 할 관계에 있었다고 봄이 타당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
and other factors considered in combination, it was reasonable to regard local government A, which established the Community Childcare Center and entrusted its operation, as being in a relationship in which it was objectively required to actually direct and supervise the performance of duties by organization B and the childcare teachers belonging thereto, because it was required to exercise direction and supervision commensurate with the expansion of its sphere of activity
Factors
- 아동복지법 제44조의2 등에 따르면 다함께돌봄센터의 설치 및 운영 주체는 지방자치단체이고
- 돌봄서비스에 관한 시책 추진은 지방자치단체의 책무인 점
- 위 위탁계약은 위탁자인 갑 지방자치단체가 수탁기관인 을 단체의 운영실적, 사업계획, 예산, 결산 등에 관하여 관리·감독할 수 있는 권한을 가지고, 관련 서류의 열람, 시정조치 등을 요구할 수도 있도록 정하고 있는 점
- 갑 지방자치단체는 다함께돌봄센터 1곳을 스스로 운영하기도 하였고
- 다함께돌봄센터 위탁운영 단체를 모집할 때에는 통상 다함께돌봄센터의 운영시간, 이용료, 운영인력, 인건비, 운영 및 사업비, 시설 및 기자재비 등을 미리 구체적으로 정한 상태로 운영을 위탁하고 있는 것으로 보이는 점
Unofficial English translation
• Under Article 44-2 of the Child Welfare Act and other provisions, the entity responsible for establishing and operating a Community Childcare Center is a local government, and
• the promotion of policies concerning childcare services is a duty of local governments;
• the foregoing entrustment contract provides that the entrustor, local government A, holds the authority to manage and supervise the operating performance, business plan, budget, and settlement of accounts, among other matters, of the entrusted institution, organization B, and may also demand the inspection of relevant documents and corrective measures;
• local government A itself operated one Community Childcare Center as well; and
• when recruiting an organization to which the operation of a Community Childcare Center is entrusted, the operation is customarily entrusted after the operating hours, fees, operating personnel, labor costs, operating and project expenses, and facility and equipment expenses of the Community Childcare Center have been specifically determined in advance
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 11. 14. 선고 2019다216312 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2019Da216312 decided November 14, 2019
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2019. 11. 14. 선고 2019다216312 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What must a local government show, beyond the general entrustment of a care centre's operation, before it can prove that it took due care in supervising the contractor's employees?
A later decision reading Article 756's actual direction and supervision requirement differently in outsourced public services, or an amendment to Article 44-2 of the Child Welfare Act altering who installs and operates the centre, would require this entry to be read again. The judgment of the Daegu District Court of 29 October 2025 (2025Na302562) is now final, so a new record would have to come from another centre or another entrustment contract.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The holding combines several circumstances and applies the supervision test to this local government, allowing the primary to emphasize holistic consideration and the independent to emphasize application to the facts.
객관적으로 을 단체 및 소속 돌봄교사의 사무집행을 실질적으로 지휘·감독하여야 할 관계에 있었다고 봄이 타당하다고 한 사례.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What must a local government show, beyond the general entrustment of a care centre's operation, before it can prove that it took due care in supervising the contractor's employees?” vs Independent “Would an employment relationship still arise if the entrusting local government had substantially narrower contractual powers over staffing and operations?”
The primary asks what proves due supervisory care, while the independent asks whether narrower contractual powers still establish an employment relationship.
따라서 위탁자가 위탁계약을 통하여 수탁자 및 그 피용자를 위탁자의 사무에 종사하게 하였고, 위탁자가 이들을 실질적으로 지휘·감독하여야 할 관계에 있는 경우, 수탁자뿐만 아니라 수탁자의 피용자와 위탁자 사이에서도 민법 제756조의 사용관계가 인정될 수 있다.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 Daegu District Court, in its judgment of 29 October 2025 (2025Na302562), held that the sexual assault on a child by the care teacher employed by the defendant nonprofit organisation during a class was connected with the centre's performance of affairs, and that the circumstances the organisation asserted were not enough to show due care in supervising those affairs, so its employer liability was established. It also found that Gyeongju City was objectively in a position of actual direction and supervision over the organisation and its care teachers, so City liability followed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On the nonprofit organisation it noted that parts of the lower court's reasoning were somewhat inappropriate, but held there was no misreading of the law on the connection with the performance of affairs or on the defence of due care that affected the outcome. On Gyeongju City it approved the finding of actual direction and supervision for the same reasons, and again found no error of law affecting the judgment, dismissing both defendants' appeals on the unanimous view of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- An entrustment contract that gives the entruster no authority to manage, supervise, inspect documents or order corrections over the contractor's operation, since the Court relied on those powers.
- A local government that did not extend its own field of activity by installing and entrusting the centre, so that it was not objectively bound to direct and supervise the contractor's affairs.
- A case in which the defendant proves that it took due care in supervising the affairs of the contractor and its employees, which the courts below found unproven here.
Record verification notes
Set the entrustment contract clause by clause against the reasoning: who may approve changes, inspect documents, order corrections and terminate the contract on human-rights or sex offences. Then check whether the local government ran a centre itself and, in its recruitment notice, usually set hours, fees, staffing and costs in advance before entrusting operation. Finally gather what would show due care in supervising affairs, since the defence failed only because the circumstances asserted were not enough.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민법 제756조의 사용관계가 있는지 판단하는 기준 및 위탁자가 위탁계약을 통하여 수탁자 및 그 피용자를 위탁자의 사무에 종사하게 하였고, 위탁자가 이들을 실질적으로 지휘·감독하여야 할 관계에 있는 경우, 수탁자뿐만 아니라 수탁자의 피용자와 위탁자 사이에서도 민법 제756조의 사용관계가 인정될 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 갑 지방자치단체가 다함께돌봄센터를 설치하면서 을 비영리민간단체와 위탁계약을 체결하여 다함께돌봄센터의 운영을 위탁하였는데, 을 단체의 피용자인 돌봄교사 병이 수업 중 정을 성추행하였고, 이에 정과 부모들이 갑 지방자치단체를 상대로 민법 제756조에 따른 손해배상을 구한 사안에서, 다함께돌봄센터를 설치하여 그 운영을 위탁한 갑 지방자치단체는 자신의 활동영역을 확장한 것에 상응하는 지휘·감독을 하여야 하므로, 객관적으로 을 단체 및 소속 돌봄교사의 사무집행을 실질적으로 지휘·감독하여야 할 관계에 있었다고 봄이 타당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criteria for determining whether the relationship of use under Article 756 of the Civil Act exists, and whether, where an entrustor has, through an entrustment contract, had the entrusted party and its employees engage in the entrustor's affairs, and the entrustor is in a relationship in which it is required to actually direct and supervise them, the relationship of use under Article 756 of the Civil Act may be recognized not only between the entrustor and the entrusted party but also between the entrustor and the employees of the entrusted party (affirmative) [2] A case in which local government A, when establishing a Community Childcare Center, entered into an entrustment contract with nonprofit private organization B entrusting the operation of the Community Childcare Center to it; childcare teacher C, an employee of organization B, sexually assaulted D during a class; and D and her parents sought damages from local government A under Article 756 of the Civil Act, in which case it was held reasonable to regard local government A, which established the Community Childcare Center and entrusted its operation, as being in a relationship in which it was objectively required to actually direct and supervise the performance of duties by organization B and the childcare teachers belonging thereto, because it was required to exercise direction and supervision commensurate with the expansion of its sphere of activity
Summary of the holding
[1] 민법 제756조의 사용관계는 어떤 사람이 다른 사람을 위하여 그 지휘·감독 아래 그 의사에 따라 사무를 집행하는 관계로서, 고용관계에 의하는 것이 보통이겠지만 위임·조합·도급 기타 어떠한 관계라도 실질적인 지휘·감독 관계가 있으면 충분하고, 이러한 지휘·감독 관계는 실제로 지휘·감독하고 있느냐의 여부에 의하여 결정되는 것이 아니라 객관적으로 지휘·감독을 하여야 할 관계에 있느냐의 여부에 따라 결정된다. 따라서 위탁자가 위탁계약을 통하여 수탁자 및 그 피용자를 위탁자의 사무에 종사하게 하였고, 위탁자가 이들을 실질적으로 지휘·감독하여야 할 관계에 있는 경우, 수탁자뿐만 아니라 수탁자의 피용자와 위탁자 사이에서도 민법 제756조의 사용관계가 인정될 수 있다. [2] 갑 지방자치단체가 다함께돌봄센터를 설치하면서 을 비영리민간단체와 위탁계약을 체결하여 다함께돌봄센터의 운영을 위탁하였는데, 을 단체의 피용자인 돌봄교사 병이 수업 중 정을 성추행하였고, 이에 정과 부모들이 갑 지방자치단체를 상대로 민법 제756조에 따른 손해배상을 구한 사안에서, 아동복지법 제44조의2 등에 따르면 다함께돌봄센터의 설치 및 운영 주체는 지방자치단체이고, 돌봄서비스에 관한 시책 추진은 지방자치단체의 책무인 점, 위 위탁계약은 위탁자인 갑 지방자치단체가 수탁기관인 을 단체의 운영실적, 사업계획, 예산, 결산 등에 관하여 관리·감독할 수 있는 권한을 가지고, 관련 서류의 열람, 시정조치 등을 요구할 수도 있도록 정하고 있는 점, 갑 지방자치단체는 다함께돌봄센터 1곳을 스스로 운영하기도 하였고, 다함께돌봄센터 위탁운영 단체를 모집할 때에는 통상 다함께돌봄센터의 운영시간, 이용료, 운영인력, 인건비, 운영 및 사업비, 시설 및 기자재비 등을 미리 구체적으로 정한 상태로 운영을 위탁하고 있는 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면 다함께돌봄센터를 설치하여 그 운영을 위탁한 갑 지방자치단체는 자신의 활동영역을 확장한 것에 상응하는 지휘·감독을 하여야 하므로, 객관적으로 을 단체 및 소속 돌봄교사의 사무집행을 실질적으로 지휘·감독하여야 할 관계에 있었다고 봄이 타당하다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제756조 / [2] 민법 제756조, 아동복지법 제44조의2 제1항, 제2항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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