[손해배상청구사건][고집1976민(3),298]
In the case of endorsement of a bill under the name of the company by the chief executive officer of the company who is not authorized to act as a bill of exchange under the name of the company
In a case where the scope of the authority of the head of the cash receipt and disbursement division of the defendant company is not related to the issuance of bills or the affairs of endorsement, and the issuance of completed bills is limited to the issuance of bills and the receipt thereof, the above receipt and disbursement division chief shall not be deemed to be an act related to the execution of the affairs of the above receipt and disbursement book, and in a case where the above receipt and disbursement division used the rubber name plate used exclusively for the receipt of general documents and the export and import relations of the defendant company in relation to the receipt of a request for the forgery of endorsement from the name of the defendant company, for another purpose, regardless of the endorsement of bills, and where the endorsement of the name of the defendant company was forged on the passenger car of the forged and the bill obtained regardless of the transaction with the defendant company, it cannot be deemed to be an act
Article 756 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 76Da2888 delivered on June 28, 1977
Plaintiff
Jin Chemical Industry Company
Busan District Court (74Gahap1745)
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's appeal are dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 13,984,020 won with the amount of 5% per annum from the next day of service to the next day of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment and seek the same judgment as that of the purport of the claim, and the defendant shall have the same judgment as the disposition.
In full view of the whole purport of the testimony of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, as witness 2, part of the testimony of the court below, and part of the criminal record verification results of the court below, which are acknowledged to have been actually issued by Nonparty 1’s testimony in the court below’s testimony, the endorsement of the name of the defendant company is forged on the first endorsement column of Chapter 9 of the Promissory Notes, in which Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 2, who had the receipt and disbursement division of the defendant company, conspired in collusion with Nonparty 3, and forged each endorsement of the name of the defendant company in the second endorsement column of the above Promissory Notes, and it is difficult to recognize the fact that Nonparty 3 knew the plaintiff as if he was actually transferred each of the above promissory Notes from the defendant company to the purchase price of the goods, and it is hard to recognize the fact that the above promissory Notes was genuine from the plaintiff to the above correct endorsement, and then, it is hard to recognize the fact that there is any other amount of money fraud, which is contrary to the above 25% of the monthly amount of discount.
The plaintiff, as the cause of the claim in this case, is due to the fact that the plaintiff was aware that the part of the endorsement made in the name of the defendant company by the non-party 2, who was the director of the defendant company, forged each of the above bills. The non-party 2's act of forging the above bill belongs to the work as the director of the defendant company's receipt and disbursement division, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff. Thus, the non-party 2's employer, the defendant company, is liable to pay the plaintiff the damages equivalent to the above amount of money and damages for delay.
First, the case holding that, in light of the above facts, it is difficult for the non-party 2 to recognize the forgery of a promissory note and the above facts that the non-party 1 did not have any dispute over the establishment of the above evidence Eul through 10 (each witness examination protocol) and the whole purport of some of the testimony and arguments in the court below's civil records, the non-party 2, as the planning office and the receipt and disbursement books of the defendant company at the time of endorsement of each of the above facts, are prepared with an expenditure plan, and the above planning office and the vice president prepared a door of the above planning office or the number of units, and the vice president completed the revenue and delivery of a promissory note with the seals of the defendant company which are not the vice president of the above planning office or the vice president of the above law, and the non-party 2, as the result of the above testimony or endorsement of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's request for the delivery of the above bill to the non-party 1 and the vice president of the above financial office or vice president of the defendant.
According to the above facts, the non-party 2's business scope as an employee of the defendant company cannot be viewed as an act related to the execution of business affairs of the defendant company, even if it is objectively that the disbursement and receipt of the already completed bill is at least 1,50,000 won or at each of the above bills whose amount is at least 1,50,000 won, and that the payment and receipt of the bill is at least 1,50,000 won.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection, which is premised on the fact that the act of forging the above bill of exchange by the non-party 2 is related to the execution of its affairs, shall be dismissed. Thus, the original judgment which partially accepted the plaintiff's claim, is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is justified, and therefore, the part against the defendant is revoked in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the same Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96 and
Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)