[약속어음금][집37(1)민,59;공1989.4.1.(845),415]
Whether the act of endorsement of bills and guarantee of debt performed by the head of the insurance company can be deemed as an act closely related to the execution of his/her duties (negative)
An insurance company is subject to strict regulation to prevent the act of bearing debts such as borrowing funds, etc. from being performed without the prior approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy except for the current month from the financial institution, and its place of business is a store which exclusively deals with mechanical and auxiliary business under the direction and supervision of its head office, and has no independent financial capacity. If the issuance or endorsement of promissory notes, the preparation of documents belonging to the burden of debts of the company, or the borrowing of funds is not belonging to its business, the act of endorsement and guarantee of bills at the place of business of the insurance company, as well as acts closely related to the performance of its duties, shall not be held liable for the employer of
Article 756(1) of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 87Na275 delivered on December 2, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In light of the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's main claim on the ground that the non-party 1, the head of the defendant company's Busan organization's Busan organization's business office, has sealed the name "non-party 1, the head of the Busan organization's business office, and the fact that the non-party 1 has endorsed the Promissory Notes issued by the non-party 2 to the plaintiff, and the non-party 1's endorsement itself, even according to its own, it cannot be viewed as an endorsement in the form of proxy, and the defendant company's Busan organization's business office is not a commercial employee with authority to act on behalf of the defendant company as a matter of course, and it is not a commercial employee with authority
In addition, in order to enhance the credit rating of the bill of this case, the court below affirmed the court below's determination that the above non-party 1's issuance or endorsement of a promissory note, or preparation of a document belonging to the company's debt burden or loan of the same name and seal as that of the bill of this case, and the same name and seal as that of the bill of this case, and the letter of payment guarantee (Evidence A No. 4) and the letter of payment are delivered to the plaintiff even though the above non-party 2's insurance policy and the letter of delegation for the refund of insurance money are strictly regulated so that the defendant company may not perform its duty such as borrowing money, etc. without the prior approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, except for the difference between the financial institution and the financial institution, and that the business office is not an independent accounting ability as a store dealing with mechanical and auxiliary affairs under the direction and supervision of the head office, and it cannot be viewed that the above non-party 1's preliminary endorsement and debt guarantee act is not closely related to the defendant's duty of execution.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)