The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff became the holder upon receipt of endorsement and transfer of the Promissory Notes from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 on the date of the judgment, and the person who issued the Promissory Notes was the non-party 2 and he was issued without authority. Thus, if the holder who acquired the Promissory Notes issued without authority did not receive the payment of the amount from the payer, it would cause losses to the holder of the Promissory Notes, and the plaintiff, the holder of the said Promissory Notes, constitutes a third party under Article 756 (1) of the Civil Code (see Supreme Court Decisions 66Da1166, Sep. 20, 196; 66Da1166, Feb. 7, 67; 175Da1702, which held that the plaintiff has the right to claim damages under this case, and the judgment of the court below is just and has no right to claim damages under this case, and there is no violation of law by citing the nature of damages due to tort.

Judgment on the second ground for appeal

However, as in the theory of the lawsuit, it cannot be said that there is no loss of the plaintiff in this case, even if the above ground-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land leaves the above ground-to-land-to-land-to-land-to

Judgment on the third ground for appeal

The court below concluded that the non-party king was responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort of the above promissory note without authority since the non-party king was the principal office of the above branch office and the non-party king's act of issuing the above promissory note is objectively deemed to have been engaged in the business of the non-party king's original office or the business related thereto. The non-party king's non-party king's above act of issuing the above promissory note can be deemed to have a justifiable reason in believe that the above king's above right to issue the above promissory note was a right to issue the above king's above. Thus, according to the former part of the court below, it can be known that the defendant was the principal office of the above branch office's office, and it was the contract guarantee, defect guarantee, loan mediation, etc. to the members within the delegated area from the president specified in Article 8 of the Regulation on the Establishment of Branch Office to the extent of the above division's execution of the affairs in the original judgment. Thus, it cannot be accepted.

Judgment on the fourth ground for appeal

In the ground of appeal No. 3, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no clear reasoning or evidence in the judgment of the court below, and there is no argument that the judgment of the court below is just ground for appeal No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 2 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 2 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence of the evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)