[2] The scope of a third party who can oppose a business owner on grounds of restrictions on the power of representation by the manager, and the liability to assert and prove the third party's bad faith and gross negligence

[3] Where a manager performs a bill of exchange in violation of the internal restrictions on power of representation, the scope of a third party who can oppose such restrictions on power of representation

[4] Judicial effects of loans in violation of Article 12 of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, which prohibit loans, etc. that exceed a certain amount for the same person (effective)

[2] Where a manager's act is deemed to be an act related to the business of a business owner in light of its objective nature, the business owner may set up against the other party for such a reason as well as where the third party was aware of the restriction on the right of representation as to the act committed by the business owner in violation of the restriction on the right of representation set by the business owner, and where there was gross negligence due to the failure to know, the business owner may set up against the other party

[3] Where a manager performs an act of a bill of exchange in violation of a provision on the restriction of internal power of representation, the scope of a third party who may oppose such restriction of power of representation includes not only the other party who has acquired the bill directly from the manager but also the third party who has received the bill again from the latter.

[4] The purpose of Article 12 of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 4867 of Jan. 5, 1995), which prohibits a loan exceeding a certain amount to a single person, is to give more opportunities for credit to a certain person by regulating the loan business of the mutual savings and finance company, which is the original profit-making corporation, even though it is in principle responsible for the company's autonomy, due to its public nature according to its financial intermediary function, so this provision is deemed to be a regulation regulation, and therefore, even if the loan was made in excess of the limit, it does not affect the validity of private law.

On the first ground for appeal

A manager may engage in all judicial or extra-judicial acts on behalf of the business owner, and the restriction on the manager’s power of representation cannot be set up against a bona fide third party (Article 11(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act). Here, whether a manager’s act concerns the business of the business owner or not should be determined abstractly according to the objective nature of the act regardless of the manager’s subjective intent at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2073, Mar. 24, 1987).

The non-party 1, the president of the defendant Samsung Bank's Samsung Branch, is the manager of the defendant Bank's sub-branch and has the comprehensive power of attorney in connection with the above sub-branch. Thus, even though the endorsement of a loan bill like this case is prohibited pursuant to the regulations of the defendant Bank, it is deemed that the defendant Bank's internal restriction on the right of attorney of the manager determined inside the defendant Bank. Unless there is any proof that the plaintiff acquired the bill of this case and knew of the restriction on the above right of attorney, the defendant bank is liable to file a lawsuit against the plaintiff as an endorser, the judgment of the court below that the defendant bank

Concerning Nos. 2, 3, and 7

The court below held that the above non-party 1 was aware of the fact at the time when the plaintiff acquired the bill of this case, in violation of the manager's right of representation, and thus, it may oppose the plaintiff due to the restriction on the above right of representation. The court below held that the non-party 2, a managing director of the plaintiff's bank, asked the non-party 3, who is the administrator of trust securities of the defendant bank, about whether the defendant bank made endorsement on the bill of this case by posting a telephone on November 3, 1993. However, the plaintiff's request for a loan with the bill of this case at around 13:00 on the same day, and completed the loan procedure at least 15:00 on the same day, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to obtain the bill of this case's right of endorsement from the above non-party 3 on a daily basis, and there is no other evidence that the plaintiff could not obtain the bill of this case's discount from the above non-party 3 on the bill of this case without obtaining any clear reply and the bill of this case's discount.

In light of the records, the recognition and judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

Concerning the fourth and fifth points

Where a manager’s act is deemed to be an act related to business of the manager in light of its objective nature, the business owner may oppose the other party for such a reason as well as the case where the third party was aware of the restriction on the right of representation as determined by the business owner, and where there was gross negligence due to the failure to know the restriction on the right of representation, the business owner shall be held liable to assert and prove the third party’s bad faith or gross negligence. As such, even if the lower court failed to render a judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was gross negligence without knowing the restriction on the right of representation as determined by the business owner, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was gross negligence, and therefore, the ground for reversal cannot be deemed to constitute an unlawful act

Meanwhile, in cases where a manager performs an act of a bill of exchange in violation of the internal restrictions on power of representation, the scope of a third party who can oppose such restriction on power of representation shall be deemed to include not only the other party who directly acquired the bill from the manager but also the third party who received the bill again by endorsement and transfer. Therefore, it is justifiable for the lower court to determine whether the lower court, from the Plaintiff who acquired the bill of this case through Nonparty 4, knew of the restriction on power of the manager of this case. All arguments are without merit.

Regarding the sixth ground for appeal

The purpose of Article 12 of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 4867 of Jan. 5, 1995), which prohibits loans exceeding a certain amount to a same person, is to provide more opportunities for loans to a person by regulating the loan business of a mutual savings and finance company, which is the original profit-making corporation, in principle. However, due to its public nature according to its financial intermediary function, the provision is to provide more opportunities for loans to a specific person. Thus, this provision is the so-called regulation regulation. Therefore, even if a loan was made in excess of the limit, the validity under private law is not affected (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1458, Dec. 22, 1987; 94Da21320, Jan. 12, 1995; 96Da1876, Aug. 23, 1996). It does not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to loans in violation of the principle of good faith and good faith.

Concerning the 8th Ground

As to the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff conspireds with the non-party 4 that he had acquired the bill of this case by deceiving the non-party 1 to endorsement on the bill of this case, or that he had acquired the bill of this case with the intention to prejudice the defendant although he knew of the fact that the non-party 1 had fraudulently endorsed the bill of this case, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no

In addition, unless there are special circumstances, a person who endorsed a bill for the financing of the party to whom the bill was issued by the party to whom the bill was received cannot set up a defense against the third party that the bill was endorsed without asking the third party's good faith or bad faith and without compensation for financing, and the judgment of the court below to the same effect is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)