beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.21 2014나2034490

상품권대금청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on a new argument at the trial of the court of first instance to the corresponding part, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that A is a trade employee, who has a partial comprehensive power of attorney under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, purchased the gift certificates of this case from the plaintiff within the scope of his/her authority, and the effect of purchase affects the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the price for the gift certificates to the plaintiff, and even if he/she had to perform his/her duties with the approval of the superior in certain cases under the internal regulations of the defendant company, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff as a bona fide third

B. Determination 1) As a trade employee, who has a partial comprehensive power of attorney under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, has all acts other than trials on a specific type of business or a specific matter granted to him/her, no separate right is required from the business owner for each act. However, whether a certain act falls under a specific type or matter of business delegated to him/her shall be objectively determined in accordance with the transaction norms in consideration of various circumstances, such as the size and nature of the pertinent business, the form and continuity of the transaction, the name of the employee, the overall job division, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20440, May 28, 2009). A trade owner cannot oppose a bona fide third party by limiting the power of attorney of an employee who has the said partial comprehensive power of attorney (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da12932, Jul. 27, 199; a trade employee with a partial power of attorney, even if he/she had obtained approval of the president, etc.