[약속어음금청구사건][하집1986(1),248]
Powers of attorney of a manager who does not have a substance of comprehensive business power, etc.
The fact that the manager has the power of representation in the lawsuit of business owner is recognized as an assistant in the business owner's highest management, and the law is particularly recognized. Therefore, the person appointed as the manager for the purpose of arranging the various bonds relations of the company and dealing with the related litigation affairs after the failure of the company, who is registered as the manager, for the convenience of the lawsuit only without having the substance of the manager, has no power of representation in the lawsuit of business owner.
Article 11(1) of the Commercial Act
Han-il Co., Ltd.
Ground iron
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff's manager at his/her salary class.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 5,00,000 won and the amount of 5% per annum from January 1, 1984 to the delivery day of the complaint, and 25% per annum from the following day to the full payment day.
The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution.
ex officio, this paper examines the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
The instant lawsuit was filed under the name of the manager of the Plaintiff Company, and the instant lawsuit was accompanied by a certified copy of the register, stating that the Plaintiff Company is the manager at the principal office of the Plaintiff Company.
The former manager has the authority to conduct procedural acts on behalf of the business owner without any separate authorization procedure. It is because the manager has the legal power of attorney to conduct all judicial or extra-judicial acts on behalf of the business owner (Article 11(1) of the Commercial Act). In particular, recognition of the manager’s power of attorney to institute a lawsuit on the business owner should be deemed to have been recognized by the Act, based on the fact that the manager has a comprehensive business right on the business at a specific business place (the head office or branch office) as an assistant to the business owner. This is apparent even in light of the purport of the Act which does not grant the right of attorney to the partial comprehensive agent delegated to a specific type of business or specified matters.
In the instant case, whether the above gambling club, which is the manager of the Plaintiff Company, constitutes a manager in the above meaning. According to the assertion at the date of pleading of the said gambling club, it is clear that the said gambling club itself, which is the manager of the Plaintiff Company, has engaged exclusively in the collection of claims, such as litigation, since the Plaintiff Company was appointed as a manager around August 10, 1985 to arrange various claims relations of the Plaintiff Company after the Plaintiff Company was insolvent on November 1984 and handle litigation affairs related thereto. Thus, even based on the above argument itself, it is evident that the said gambling club cannot be deemed a manager with the comprehensive power of attorney at a specific business office of the Plaintiff Company.
The registration of the manager prior to the name of the habitual sealing cannot be deemed to have been made solely for the convenience of litigation without dancing by the manager.
In addition, the act of having a manager registered without having the substance of the manager and having the manager act on behalf of the manager, as a matter of principle, an attorney-at-law may act on behalf of the manager, and in the case of ordinary people, it is also going against the purpose of the Civil Procedure Act and the Attorney-at-Law Act, which provide that only the case where the presiding judge has obtained the permission.
Thus, the lawsuit of this case brought under the name of the plaintiff company on the premise that the above gambling is the manager of the plaintiff company is unlawful. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. It is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.
Judges Oi-devise