[손해배상청구사건][고집1972민(2),55]
Issuance of forged checks by employees and employer's liability for damages
The act of Nonparty A, the director of the accounting division of the Defendant Company “A” in forging two copies of the check in the name of the Defendant Company, does not themselves belong to the act of execution of the Defendant Company’s affairs, in external terms, the Defendant Company, as the employer of the above “A”, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the amount of the check, which was incurred to the Plaintiff due to the Defendant Company’s tort, even though it is not an act of execution
Article 756 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 72Da1388 delivered on October 10, 1972
Plaintiff
Defendant corporation
Gwangju District Court of the first instance (71Gahap89) Gunsan Branch Court of the Gwangju District Court
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The burden of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (1) of the text of the judgment of the first instance.
The defendant shall pay 1,150,000 won to the plaintiff.
The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
In light of the above evidence No. 4 (the non-party 1's statement of the non-party 1) and the above statement No. 5 (the non-party 1's name was insufficient, and the non-party 1's testimony of the non-party 3 and the non-party 4's own account and the result of each verification of the criminal records of the non-party 5's own account at the court below, the non-party 1's name and the non-party 6's personal seal impression of the non-party 7's representative director and the above non-party 6's personal seal impression of the non-party 9's own account No. 97's name and the non-party 6's representative director's name were non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6 representative director'.
Thus, as recognized above by Nonparty 7, the act of forging the two copies of the check in the name of the defendant company does not fall under the act of execution of the defendant company's business, even if it does not fall under the act of execution of the defendant company's business itself, the defendant company is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the total amount of the check amount caused by the defendant's unlawful act in the name of the non-party 7 as the employer of the non-party 7.
Even if the plaintiff is liable for damages on the part of the defendant company, the defendant company's attorney must verify whether the non-party 6 is the representative director of the defendant company and whether the non-party 7 issued the check in the name of the defendant company with legitimate authority from the representative director. In addition, even though it can be easily confirmed, the plaintiff did not confirm the above, and the plaintiff's defense that the defendant company's representative director should consider the plaintiff's above negligence in determining the liability for damages and the amount of damages. Thus, although the defendant company's representative director changed from the non-party 6 to the non-party 1, the defendant company continued to conduct current account transactions with the defendant company's military branch and the party account additional agreement in the name of the non-party 6 who is the former representative director, and the non-party 7 still remains in office after the non-party 6 resigned the defendant company's position director, and kept the name and official seal of the defendant company and the seals of the non-party 6 and continued to process the defendant company's checks.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the sum of loans of KRW 1,150,000 to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and the judgment of the court of first instance which has the same conclusion is just and reasonable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost, and the provisional execution is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the declaration of provisional execution.
Judges and soldiers (Presiding Judge)