The case holding that there is a continuous endorsement of a bill

The series of endorsement of a bill is sufficient in the form, and the receiver column of this Promissory note is stated as "non-party 1 of the Busan Chamber of Commerce and Industry", and the column of endorsement is stated as "non-party 1 of the Busan Chamber of Commerce and Industry" and "non-party 1" in the name column and it can be deemed as the same person under social norms even if the statement of the bill is accurately inconsistent with the statement in the form. Therefore, the last holder is presumed to be a lawful holder even if it is forged.

Articles 77 and 16 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da570 delivered on May 24, 1971 (Kakadd. 9678; Supreme Court Decision 19Du260 delivered on September 24, 197; Decision 74Da902 delivered on September 24, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 108Da10818 delivered on September 24, 197, Supreme Court Decision 223Da24 delivered on September 24, 197, Decision 77(22)70 delivered on the summary, Court Gazette 500No8061 delivered on September 24, 1974

Plaintiff

Defendant Stock Company

Busan District Court (72 Gohap1994)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 320,110 won with an annual interest rate of 6 percent from September 3, 1972 to the full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be 20 minutes through the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the other by the plaintiff.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (2).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7,021,110 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

The original judgment shall be revoked; hereinafter the same shall apply to the entries in the purport of the claim.

First of all, we judge the plaintiff's claim.

On September 20, 1971, the fact that the Defendant Company issued one promissory note as stated in paragraph (1) in the separate sheet to the Busan Chamber of Commerce and Industry is not a dispute between the parties. Considering the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff acquired five promissory notes in the separate sheet from Nonparty 1 for payment on the date on which the payment was made in the same list, and presented five promissory notes in the separate sheet for payment on the same date.

The Plaintiff asserts that, as a bearer of each Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff sought the payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes in accordance with paragraph (1) of the attached Table, to the Defendant Company, the issuer, and that the remaining Promissory Notes seek payment of the amount of the amount of the payable amount as the exercise of the right of recourse to the Promissory Notes against the Defendant Company, which is its endorser, the Defendant first stated that the Promissory Notes in paragraph (1) of the attached table was issued by the Defendant Company in the account and receipt and disbursement of the Defendant Company, shall be delivered to Nonparty 1, and the same shall be stated in the Busan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which is stated as the initial recipient of the said Check, and the name of the endorser shall be stated in Busan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the beneficiary shall be stated in the bill as Busan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have continued to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the Promissory Notes. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s further endorsement shall be deemed to have been in conformity with the Plaintiff’s legal statement in Busan Chamber of Commerce and Industry as its name.

In addition, according to the testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2, the defendant's endorsement of the name of the defendant company among the promissory notes indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 5, is forged and its endorsement is null and void. Thus, it is argued that the endorsement of the name of the defendant company is invalid. The endorsement of the name of the defendant company in each of the promissory notes mentioned in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 9, 3 through 8, 10, 11, 12, and 1-2 through 5, and the testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2, which are earlier, can be recognized without authority by illegally using the name and official seal of the defendant company in collusion with the non-party 1, and it can be recognized that the endorsement of the name of the defendant company in each of the above promissory notes is invalid.

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 320,110 won of the Promissory Notes in the attached Table No. 1 and the amount equivalent to six percent per annum of the Bill No. 1 from September 3, 1972 to the full payment system, on the record that the payment date for the Promissory Notes No. 1 in the attached Table No. 1 is the next day after the date of presentment of payment for the Promissory Notes No. 1, and on the premise that each Promissory Notes No. 2 to 5 are valid, the remaining claim by the plaintiff for the payment of each Promissory Notes No. 1 against the defendant is not reasonable.

The plaintiff's preliminary claims are examined as follows.

원고는 피고회사의 회계과 출납계장인 소외 2가 소외 1과 공모하여 별지목록 제2항 내지 제5항기재의 약속어음(이하 이건 약속어음이라 부른다)에 피고회사명의 배서를 위조하였다 하더라도 소외 2는 피고회사의 출납계장이고 그 위조에 사용된 피고회사의 명판과 인장은 피고회사에서 사용하는 것으로써 소외 2의 행위는 외관상 그 직무집행으로 적법하게 배서한 것으로 인식을 받게 하였으며 이를 배서받아 원고에게 교부한 소외 1은 피고회사의 빈번한 거래처로써 그가 피고회사에 가공납품한 대금쪼로 받은 어음이라고 하면서 할인을 요구하기에, 원고는 그말을 믿고 이건 어음중 별지 제2항 내지 제4항표시 약속어음은 소외 1로부터 배서양도받고, 제5항표시 약속어음은 소외 1로부터 백지식배서인체로 교부받고, 그 교부받은 날로부터 지급기일까지의 월리 3푼 해당금액을 공제한 돈을 소외 1에게 지급하였던 것이므로 피고회사는 소외 2의 사용자로서 동인의 위 불법행위로 말미암아 원고에게 입힌 손해를 배상할 의무가 있다고 주장하고, 피고는 소외 2가 피고회사의 피용인이기는 하나 동소외인의 위와 같은 행위는 피고회사의 직무집행과 아무런 관계없는 것이라고 다투므로 이 점을 살피건대, 소외 2가 원고주장과 같은 약속어음들에 피고명의로 배서를 하여 소외 1에게 배서양도 또는 교부를 하고 소외 1은 이를 원고에게 배서양도 또는 교부를 하였음은 앞서 인정한 바와 같고, 한편, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 2호증의 1,3,4,5 갑 7,8,9호증(다만 갑 7,8호증중 아래에서 믿지 아니하는 부분제외), 을 3호증 내지 을 12호증, 을 13호증의 4, 원심증인 소외 3의 증언에 의하여 성립을 인정할 수 있는 을 13호증의 1 내지 3과, 앞서나온 갑 1호증의 2 내지 5의 각 기재내용과 위 증인 및 원심증인 전판재 앞서나온 소외 1, 2의 각 증언에, 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고회사에 약속어음을 발행 하거나, 이에 배서할 경우에는 반드시 법원에 등록된 법인인감만을 사용하도록 되어있고, 그 인감은 피고회사 부사장이 보관하여 사용하는 사실, 피고회사는 타거래처로부터 받은 약속어음을 배서하여 이를 물품대금지급을 위하여 거래선에 양도하는 사례는 전혀 없고, 물품대금지급등의 사무를 처리함에 있어서 약속어음으로 결재할 경우에는 기획실에서 수립한 계획에 따라서 필요한 액면의 어음을 작성하여 부사장에게 결재를 올리면 그는 그 내용을 검토하여 위 신고된 인감을 날인한 후 기획실장과 회계과장을 거쳐 출납계장앞으로 보내는 절차를 밟으므로써 출납계장은 다만 위 약속어음을 대금수령인에게 전달하는 동시에 그로부터 영수증을 교부받아 이를 지불전표에 첨부한 다음, 경리과에 회부하는 사무만을 담당하고 있는 사실, 소외 2는 당시 피고회사 회계과 출납계장보의 직에 종사하여 피고회사의 약속어음의 발행 및 배서의 절차에 관한 위와 같은 사정을 잘 알고 있으면서도 소외 1의 부정한 청탁을 받아들여 어음의 발행 및 그 배서절차등에 사용할 수 없는 피고회사의 수입과 서무계에 비치된 피고회사의 명판과 직인을 다른 명목으로 빌리거나 몰래 가져와 소외 1이 내어주는 이건 각 약속어음의 배서란에 압날한 사실, 소외 1은 위와 같은 경위로 배서란이 위조된 이건 각 약속어음을 부산시 중앙동을 무대로 고리대금업을 하는 원고에게 소위 어음할인을 요구하자 그 약속어음의 발행인인 소외 4나 소외 5는 전혀 알지도 못하는 사이이고 또 그 자력이나 신용도에 관하여는 전혀 고려해 보지도 아니하고 단지 피고회사명의로 배서되어 있는 점만을 중시하여 소외 1의 요구에 응하게 된 사실, 원고는 장기간 부산시 중앙동일대에서 고리대금업을 하고 있어서 일반적으로 어음할인을 하는 경우 그 발행인의 자력상태등 신용도를 조사하여 보는 것이 상례이고, 또, 이건과 같이 배서인의 자력을 믿고 거래를 하는 경우라면 그 배서인의 배서가 진정한 것인가를 알아보는 것이 이건과 같은 거래에 있어 통상의 예에 속하는 것이고, 또 피고회사는 국내굴지의 고무합성제품메이커로서 그 거래선으로부터 받은 타인발행의 약속어음에 배서하여 물품대금쪼로 지급하는 예는 이례에 속하며, 그 소재지가 부산에 있고 그 거래은행이 모두 부산시내에 있어 피고회사의 경리관계담당자나 거래은행에 이건 약속어음의 배서의 진정여부를 일차 문의해서 확인하는 전화등 지극히 용이한 방법으로 알아낼 수 있는 것이고, 또 그렇게 확인만 하였더라면 그 배서의 위조는 금방 발각될 수 있는 상태였는데도 원고는 이에 이르지 아니하고 만연히 중개인의 말과 이건 약속어음에 기재된 피고회사의 위조배서만을 보고 발행인보다 피고회사에 대하여 어떤 방법으로든지 책임지을 심산으로 고

It can be recognized that only if the rate of interest is deducted to take profits, the remaining bill discount is urgent, and part of the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 against this is not trusted by a party member, and there is no other counter-proof.

Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act provides that "an employee's work performance" of an employee shall be interpreted as including cases where an employee's act does not actually belong to his own act of performing his own duties, and even if the employee's act is objectively related to the act of performing his original duties, or is regarded as an act within the scope of his duties because it is similar to that of the employee's act of performing duties. Furthermore, even if the employee's act is not lawful within the scope of his duties, it is a theory to protect the employee's bona fide act. Thus, if the victim knew that the act of performing duties of the employee is not an act of performing duties of the employee, the victim is not worth protecting the plaintiff's bona fide act of the non-party company, as well as the fact that the victim knew of the fact that the non-party company's act of performing duties of the non-party 1 was committed by the non-party 2's act of using the non-party 1's own interest and therefore, it is not worth protecting the victim's own interest in the non-party 2's own interest and interest of the defendant company.

Thus, under the premise that the endorsement by the name of the defendant company against the non-party 2's non-party 2 on the Promissory Notes is an act done in the course of performing his duties, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for damages against the defendant company is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claims are reasonable and acceptable, and the remainder of the main claims and the conjunctive claims are without merit. Accordingly, the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair and revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 89, and Article 92 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)