According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 2, who is the principal agent of the loan, such as the deposit of the central branch of the defendant bank and the agent of the loan, takes charge of guarantee of commercial bills, guarantee of payment, discount of bills, etc. and payment guarantee of promissory notes issued by the non-party 3 on behalf of the head of the branch office, and in collusion with the non-party 4, the chairperson of the non-party 3 corporation and the representative director of the non-party 5 upon the request of the non-party 5, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5, the representative director of the above central branch office, at the above central office office around July 19, 1983, the non-party 6, and 7, who is the employee of the non-party 3 corporation, obtained at the face value 30,00,000,000 won in the name of the issuance of the non-party 3 corporation, and the plaintiff is liable for the above non-party 1's signature and discount of the above payment guarantee date.

Examining the contents of evidence prepared by the court below in accordance with the records, it is just to accept the above fact-finding of the court below and to determine that the act of forging the payment guarantee by Nonparty 1 and 2, who is an employee of the defendant bank, is an act of acting in person or an act related to it, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of employer's liability as argued in this paper.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that since the payment guarantee of the above bill guarantees the payment only by the date of the payment of the bill, as long as the plaintiff presented payment after the date of the payment after the date of the bill, the defendant is not liable for the payment. Since the payment guarantee period of the bill is met, the payment guarantee period shall be deemed null and void if it is attached to the bill, and even if the plaintiff, who is the holder of the above bill, did not present the payment guarantee by the date of the bill, the defendant cannot refuse the payment of the above bill, and the defendant shall not refuse the payment of the above bill for the drawer, and the decision that the payment guarantee date for the plaintiff's claim, who is liable for damages to the third party, shall not be the ground to deny the defendant's liability.

(2) However, in the case of guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, there is no express provision demanding simplification, such as in the case of issuance and endorsement. In addition, in the case of guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, in that it is an incidental obligation premised on the principal obligation, the acceptance of a bill similar to the guarantee is deemed to be a rejection, and in case of attaching conditions on acceptance, the underwriter is deemed to be responsible in accordance with the terms and conditions of acceptance, and thus, the acceptance of a bill is recognized to be simple acceptance. In light of the fact that the acceptance of a bill is more strict than in the case of acceptance of a bill of exchange with respect to the guarantee, and the conditional guarantee is deemed to be valid, and it does not undermine the safety of the transaction of a bill, it is reasonable to view that

On the contrary, the view that the remaining condition emphasizing the simplification of the old bill guarantee is null and void, and thus it cannot be employed as a simple guarantee without any conditions, because it goes against the explicit intent of the guarantor.

(3) According to the facts found by the court below, the wording of the bill guarantee of this case is to guarantee the payment of the bill until the due date. This is interpreted as conditional guarantee to guarantee the payment of the bill when the bill is presented within the due date. Therefore, even if the above bill guarantee is duly formed, the defendant, the guarantor, is liable for conditional guarantee in accordance with the letter of guarantee, even if the above bill guarantee is actually established, and the condition is not fulfilled.

Therefore, even though the plaintiff is able to believe that it is true that the guarantee of the bill that the non-party 1 has forged and incurred by contributing money to acquire the bill, the damage is ultimately caused by the acquisition of a bill that cannot enforce the responsibility for the guarantee of the bill to the guarantor. Therefore, the damage can be asserted to the extent that it can enforce the liability for the guarantee in accordance with the terms of the guarantee. If the plaintiff, the holder of the bill, was unable to enforce the liability for the guarantee in accordance with the terms of the guarantee because the condition of the guarantee has not been fulfilled because the payment was not presented during the time limit for the presentment of payment, it shall be deemed that the damage was caused by the acquisition of the above guarantee that the defendant, the guarantor of the bill, believed and acquired the above guarantee as true

(4) In this regard, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the validity of conditional bill guarantee and the user's liability for damages caused by tort, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)