(b) Whether the endorsement of a bill is an act within the scope of purposes of a company operating a short-term financial business;

B. In the issuance, discount, trading, acceptance, guarantee, and intermediation of the sale and purchase of bills, a company operating short-term financial business must be deemed as an act directly and indirectly necessary for accomplishing the above purpose in light of the objective nature of the act.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal on the above part are assessed against the defendant.

According to the records, when Nonparty 1 borrowed money from the plaintiff, the representative director of Mine Construction Co., Ltd. issued a promissory note as collateral and delivered by Nonparty 2 to the plaintiff in the name of the defendant in order to guarantee the above loan, and the plaintiff, the holder of the said promissory note, presented for payment on the date of payment, but the plaintiff demanded the payment on the basis of the right of recourse against the defendant, who is the endorser, and the plaintiff as the first preliminary claim, made a claim for the payment on the ground that the defendant guaranteed the loan to Nonparty 1. Accordingly, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's act of payment on the basis of the right of recourse against the defendant and the first preliminary claim is invalid since the defendant's act of payment on the basis of the right of recourse against the defendant and the first preliminary claim, which was established under the Short-Term Finance Business Act, is limited to the above business and the defendant's articles of incorporation limit the above business.

The legal capacity of a company is limited by the law that served as the basis for the establishment of the company and the purpose of the articles of incorporation of the company, but acts within the scope of that purpose are not limited to the purpose itself specified in the articles of incorporation, but to all necessary acts directly or indirectly in the achievement of that purpose, and whether it is necessary for the achievement of that purpose should be determined abstractly depending on the objective nature of the act, not by the subjective intent of the actor. In this case, when the defendant engages in short-term financing business as a company, the endorsement of the bill is an act directly or indirectly necessary for the fulfillment of the above purpose, given the objective nature of the act.

With respect to endorsement of the bill of this case by the representative director of the defendant, the judgment of the court below that the bill of this case was a juristic act outside the defendant's legal capacity cannot be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the company's legal capacity, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below shall not be reversed.

2. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant’s attorney

The court below recognized the fact that Nonparty 2 endorsed in the bill issued by Nonparty 1 in the name of the defendant in collusion with Nonparty 2, the representative director of the defendant, in the course of the establishment and operation of several companies including the defendant, and recognized the fact that the above endorsement was conducted in the name of the defendant in collusion with Nonparty 1, the financial standing funds. However, although the above endorsement was an act outside the defendant's legal capacity, it was closely related to the defendant's business operation of short-term financial business, and was seen as an act of the defendant's duty in appearance, thereby accepting the plaintiff's second preliminary claim, recognizing the defendant's tort liability, and setting

However, as seen in the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below that rejected the Plaintiff’s primary claim should be reversed because the part of the judgment below that rejected the Plaintiff’s primary claim is erroneous, so even if there were errors in the judgment below against the Defendant regarding the conjunctive claim, the conclusion of the judgment below that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable,

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed and remanded to the court below. The defendant's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)