The costs of appeal shall be borne by both the plaintiff and the defendant.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 25 million won with an annual interest rate of 6 percent from March 16, 1979 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

As the Defendant recognized the authenticity of the seal affixed under his name, in full view of the testimony of Nonparty 1 and 2 of Nonparty 1 and the result of the examination of the criminal records in the first instance trial on February 12, 1979, Nonparty 3, who worked as the director of the accounting division of the Defendant Company, submitted to Nonparty 2 on February 12, 1979, KRW 40,000 at face value, KRW 40,000 at face value, KRW 12, 1979, the issue date, the issue date, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the issuer’s bank securities, the representative director, Nonparty 4, the addressee, and the due date of the bill in blank, and Nonparty 2 submitted to the Plaintiff a promissorysory note in blank, and on February 28, 200, the Plaintiff rejected the payment of the bill in question on March 14, 1979.

However, considering the above facts, the non-party 3 did not have the authority to issue a promissory note under the name of the non-party 2, even if the non-party 3 did not have the authority to do so on the part of the non-party 5's testimony at the time of the issuance of the above statement, and the non-party 3 did not have the authority to do so on the part of the non-party 1's office's non-party 2's statement and the non-party 3's statement that the non-party 3 did not have the authority to do so on the part of the non-party 3's statement because the non-party 4's statement of the above non-party 3's statement was merely the non-party 1's statement of the above non-party 3's statement and the non-party 2's statement of the above non-party 3's statement of the above non-party 1's own money and the defendant 3's statement of the above facts. Thus, it is hard to find that it is against the above legal principles.

2. Determination on the part responsible for the employer

In full view of the testimony of Nonparty 2, the result of the examination of criminal records, and the purport of the argument as above, the plaintiff listens to the statement that the borrower would borrow funds from Nonparty 1 in order to lend funds to the defendant company due to the existence of idle funds to Nonparty 2, and then transferred the statement from the same person to the non-party 2, it can be recognized that the plaintiff would make a loan to the defendant company and the plaintiff would deposit the statement to the same person, and the non-party 2 did not have any counter-proof evidence, while the non-party 2 received the bill of this case to the non-party 3 with the non-party 40,000,000 won, and the reason why the bill of this case was delivered to the defendant company's name was already seen above. Thus, even if the above act of the non-party 3 was conducted for personal purposes beyond the scope of the defendant company's accounting division's office and position, it appears that it was an act for the execution of the defendant company's business, and thus, the defendant company was liable for damages to the non-party 3000.

However, the non-party 2 was at fault as stated in the plaintiff's assertion of liability for expression against the non-party 3's belief that the non-party 3 issued the bill of this case and borrowed the above money as a legitimate execution of the defendant company's business. In light of the relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party 2 in the transaction of this case, since such negligence is considered to be the negligence on the part of the victim, it should be taken into account from his own negligence. The degree of negligence on the part of the plaintiff is recognized that the degree of negligence on the part of the defendant company does not reach the degree of exemption from liability for damages of the defendant company. Thus, in determining the scope of liability for damages, it is reasonable to determine the amount to be compensated by the defendant company as KRW 15 million among them

3. Conclusion

In this case, the part of the plaintiff's claim for promissory notes in the claim of this case is dismissed without merit. However, the above amount of 15,00,000 won among the claims based on the employer's liability and damages for delay in civil law in accordance with the annual rate of 5% from March 16, 1979 to the full payment system shall be accepted and the remainder shall be dismissed without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance that has concluded this conclusion is just and without merit, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant as per the disposition.

Judges Lee Han-young (Presiding Judge)