(b) Whether it can be deemed that the payment guarantee of a bill presented at the expiration of the payment presentment period is ratified, where the board of directors of a bank resolves to pay the amount of a bill with respect to a bill presented within the payment presentation period even if the portion of payment guarantee is forged;

(c) Validity of conditional guarantee of bills;

(d) Whether an employer is liable under the Civil Act, in case where an employee has forged the conditional bill of exchange and Promissory Notes under the employer’s name, but has become unable to take the guarantee responsibility for the employer due to the unfulfillment

B. Since the payment guarantee portion of a promissory note in the bank name is forged and thus, even if the payment guarantee portion is forged, the bank has set forth a policy to pay the amount of a promissory note to the holder after examining the requirements for the bill in order to prevent economic confusion caused by the refusal of payment and the external credibility of financial institutions in order to prevent the occurrence of the payment guarantee portion, even if the payment guarantee portion was presented within the period for presentation of payment, and even if there was a case where the above payment of a promissory note was actually paid, it cannot be deemed that all the payment guarantee act of a promissory note presented after the expiration of the payment guarantee period was ratified against

C. In the case of a guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, there is no express provision demanding simplification, such as in the case of issuance and endorsement, and in the case of an incidental act of assuming a bill of exchange similar to a guarantee, in view of the fact that acceptance of a bill of exchange is recognized as an incidental act of assuming an incidental act of debt, it is reasonable to regard a conditional guarantee as an interpretation requiring more strict simplification as to the acceptance of a bill of exchange as valid, and on the other hand, it is not detrimental to the safety of the transaction of a bill, and thus, it is reasonable to regard a conditional guarantee subject to a condition as

D. In case where an employee forges a bill guarantee under the employer’s name that the payment of the bill will be guaranteed by the due date, even if the holder has sustained losses by making a contribution to acquire the bill with the belief that the above forged bill guarantee was genuine, and due to the failure to present payment within the period for the presentation of payment for the bill, so long as it is impossible to enforce the liability for the guarantee due to the words of the bill as the guarantor of the bill as long as the condition of guarantee is not fulfilled due to the failure to present payment within the period for the presentation of payment for the bill, the employee suffers such

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney as to the primary claim

(1) On the first ground for appeal

Article 126 of the Civil Act on Representation refers to only the person who becomes the other party to the act of expression as the other party, and it shall be interpreted equally in cases where the above provision applies or analogically applies to the validity of the act of expression by an expression agency. In addition, since the payment guarantee of a promissory note is the sole act of the guarantor with the intent to guarantee the obligation of the amount of the promissory note for the drawer, the specific act and the actual counterpart are not the third acquisitor of the promissory note, but the drawer.

As determined by the court below, if the Plaintiff issued the non-party 1 corporation, and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 et al. entered the above promissory note in the face of the above promissory note with a false statement of payment guarantee in the name of the Defendant and became a third purchaser, it shall not be deemed a third party who can assert that the payment guarantee act of this case done without authority by the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 et al. is effective as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act, even if the contents of the payment guarantee were acquired by mistake that it is true and correct.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

There is no error in the judgment below that it is the other party's declaration of intent to convert the act of invalidity into a valid act, and as determined by the court below, even if the payment guarantee part of a promissory note issued by the non-party 1 corporation was forged, there was a fact that the defendant bank determined the policy to pay the amount to the holder after examining the requirements for the promissory note in order to prevent economic confusion that would be caused by the refusal of payment and the external public confidence of financial institutions in respect to the promissory note presented within the period for the presentation of payment, and even if there was a case in which the said promissory note was actually paid, such circumstance alone does not lead to the conclusion that the payment guarantee part of the Promissory note of this case presented after the expiration of the period for the presentation of payment was ratified by both the issuer and the holder. It is also justified in the judgment below to the same effect. It is without merit in the

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant’s attorney as to the conjunctive claim

(1) On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, who had been acting as an agent or an employee of the central branch of the defendant bank, are responsible for the payment guarantee of promissory notes issued by the non-party 1 corporation on behalf of the head of the non-party 4 and the representative director, upon the request of the non-party 5, the non-party 1 corporation's chairperson and the non-party 5's representative director on August 1983, the non-party 19:30 minutes before the expiration of the business hours of the central branch's payment guarantee of the bill, and the non-party 6 and the non-party 7, who acquired the above non-party 1's name and seal affixed to the non-party 1's name and seal affixed to the non-party 3's name and seal affixed to the non-party 1's name and seal affixed to the non-party 1's name and seal affixed to the non-party 1's bank's company's 9.

In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and the decision that the act of forging the payment guarantee of the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, who is an employee of the defendant bank, constitutes the act of his own conduct of business or the act related to the above act is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the guarantee of the payment of the Promissory Notes of this case is the guarantee of the due date only until the due date for the payment of the Promissory Notes, and the plaintiff presented a payment proposal after the due date for the Promissory Notes of this case. If the due date is attached to the defendant's assertion that there is no payment obligation to the defendant, the guarantee of the Promissory Notes of this case shall be deemed null and void, and it shall be deemed null and void and void.

However, in the case of a guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, there is no express provision demanding simplification as in the case of issuance and endorsement. In addition, in the case of a guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, in that it is an incidental obligation that assumes the principal obligation, and the conditions for acceptance of a bill similar to the guarantee are attached, the acceptance shall be deemed as once non-acceptance, but the underwriter shall be held liable in accordance with the terms and conditions of acceptance, and in view of the fact that the acceptance of a bill is recognized as simple acceptance, the demand for more strict simplification than in the case of acceptance of a bill of exchange with respect to the guarantee shall be deemed as null and void, and since conditional guarantee is regarded as valid, it is not detrimental to the safety of the transaction of a bill, it shall be deemed that the guarantor's liability arises as the terms and conditions of the conditional guarantee, and the view that the remaining conditions emphasizing the simplification of the guarantee of a bill of exchange cannot be accepted because it is against the explicit intent

If the text of the bill guarantee of this case, like the Defendant’s note, provides a guarantee for the payment of the bill by the due date (the Plaintiff’s assertion is agreed upon), it shall be interpreted as a conditional guarantee to the effect that the payment is guaranteed when the payment is presented within the due date. Therefore, even if the above bill guarantee is duly established, the Defendant, the surety, is liable for conditional guarantee in accordance with the letter of guarantee, even if the above bill guarantee is duly established, and the said guarantee is not held liable for the payment even if the condition is not fulfilled even when the period for the presentation of

Therefore, even if the plaintiff believed that the guarantee of a conditional bill was genuine and sustained losses by contributing money to acquire the bill, so long as the plaintiff, the holder of the bill, was unable to enforce the guarantee liability due to the words of the guarantee because the condition of the guarantee was not fulfilled due to the failure to present payment within the time limit for presentment for payment, it cannot be claimed as damages incurred by the defendant, who is the guarantor of the bill, to believe that the above guarantee of a bill was genuine (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1600, Mar. 11, 1986). In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on conditional guarantee and the user's liability for damages due to tort, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and this constitutes grounds for reversal of Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)