In this case, The supreme court ruled that the carrier said in the article 2 of 789 in the commercial law is not only the organ of the representaion of the legal person but also the employee who exercises directing mind and all authority of the company on behalf of the organ of the representaion on the whole or part of the management work according to the internal division of the duty although he is not a member of the board of the directors or a officer. As a result of that fact, such a conduct of the employee is the company's own act. In other word, the court looks the employee as the organ of the legal person. But this decision is unjust because the employee is not a organ of the legal person. there is the better formation of theory. It is as follows. Firstly, it is to theorize that the employer's liability of reparation is not substitute responsibility but his own one. Secondly, it is the better to theorize that the conduct of the employee is the one of the employer than that the employee is the organ of the company. Namely, the conduct of the employee who acts as the representation of the organ of the company is the act of the director who exercise the authority of the company on it's works. As observed above first and second, If this case is theorized in this way, the inconsistency of the court's decision will be solved.

In this case, The supreme court ruled that the carrier said in the article 2 of 789 in the commercial law is not only the organ of the representaion of the legal person but also the employee who exercises directing mind and all authority of the company on behalf of the organ of the representaion on the whole or part of the management work according to the internal division of the duty although he is not a member of the board of the directors or a officer. As a result of that fact, such a conduct of the employee is the company's own act. In other word, the court looks the employee as the organ of the legal person. But this decision is unjust because the employee is not a organ of the legal person. there is the better formation of theory. It is as follows. Firstly, it is to theorize that the employer's liability of reparation is not substitute responsibility but his own one. Secondly, it is the better to theorize that the conduct of the employee is the one of the employer than that the employee is the organ of the company. Namely, the conduct of the employee who acts as the representation of the organ of the company is the act of the director who exercise the authority of the company on it's works. As observed above first and second, If this case is theorized in this way, the inconsistency of the court's decision will be solved.

the employer's liability of reparation, tort of legal person, the representation of the legal person, limitation of liability of carrier, the meaning and range of carrier's own