As the director of the deposit office for defendant Cho Young-seon issued a payment guarantee on a check on the date of another person’s issuance of the check, as long as it is closely related to the principal credit business of the office, the defendant was liable to compensate for damages caused by the transaction as an employer of the above office against the other party who has transacted with the other party who believed the payment guarantee valid, as the principal credit business of the office was stated in the same case as a member of the union. Therefore, the judgment below that recognized the defendant as liable to compensate for damages caused by the transaction of the plaintiff to believe that the payment guarantee for the check is valid on several occasions as stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and there is no discussion about this issue.

judgment on the second ground of appeal by such agent;

According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, the defendant union is a special corporation established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and its business ability is limited within the scope prescribed by the same Act, and the borrowing of funds from the defendant union for credit business is allowed only to start with the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. In this case, if the defendant union guaranteed payment on the check as to the check according to the plaintiff's assertion, it is clear that the act of the defendant union's lending of funds constitutes a violation of the above provision and thus null and void, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the check payment is rejected. In this case, it is clear that the defendant union recognized the user's liability as above and the decision was made to accept the plaintiff's claim without considering the plaintiff's negligence in calculating the amount of compensation for the user's liability caused by issuing the letter of payment guarantee

However, the act of borrowing funds from any other person than the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (Article 111 (1) 4 (f) of the same Act, and the act of payment guarantee against the date check issued by another person is also null and void as it is also equivalent to the above act of borrowing funds, and it cannot be said that there is no negligence in believing that the above act is valid due to the violation of the provisions of the law and the act of payment guarantee against the date check issued by another person, and that there is no negligence. However, in this case, it is believed that the payment guarantee against the non-party to the deposit office in Si-dong-dong, the non-party in this case is valid, and that the plaintiff was negligent in the transaction as stated in its reasoning, and even if the defendant did not assert a comparative negligence, it should be taken into account in determining the amount of damages, and thus, it should be reversed as to the part of the judgment against the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices under Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)