“A” representative director of the Defendant Company A, in order to raise its operating funds, provided as collateral to the Plaintiff by forging the number of votes in the name of the Defendant Company with another managing director, and borrowed money, the requirements for the Defendant Company to be liable to the Plaintiff.

"A" representative director of the company "A", in order to raise its operating funds, provided the plaintiff as security by forging a list in the name of the defendant company with another managing director, and borrowed money from him, in order for the defendant company to be held liable to the plaintiff, shall be limited to the case where the debt security act belongs to the defendant company's ordinary business activity or has a close relation to the ordinary business activity, and it appears that it falls under the scope of the business activity.

Articles 35 and 756 of the Civil Act

Attorney Yang Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na680 delivered on November 23, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

Judgment on the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held to the effect that the non-party, based on its timely evidence, forged a check in the name of the defendant company in order to obtain the operating funds of the Sangcheoncheon Company whose representative director is the non-party, provided it as a security to the plaintiff, borrowed money such as the original loan from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff also borrowed money from the plaintiff for the purpose of using the original loan for the operation funds of the Sangcheoncheon Company. However, the court below compared to the records and reviewed the relation of the evidence cooking which was conducted for the recognition of the above facts, and did not find any errors in the evidence preparation, which led to the court below's finding of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no reason to argue that the above measures of the court below did not have any errors in the evidence preparation, and as long as it is recognized that the application of Article 395 of the Commercial Act

Judgment on the second ground

First of all, the issue of whether the non-party's act of forging the number of votes in the name of the defendant company and offering them as a collateral to the plaintiff as the managing director of the defendant company can be seen as an act of "one act" under Article 35 of the Civil Code or Article 756 of the Civil Code as a managing director of the defendant company.

According to the court below's decision, the non-party's act of issuing a check in the name of the defendant company and offering the plaintiff the amount of money at the time of original purchase from the plaintiff as a collateral for the debt, so in order to recognize the non-party's act as one of the above acts with respect to the above duties or affairs under the Civil Act, the non-party's act has close relation to the act of ordinary business of the defendant company even if it belongs to the act of ordinary business of the defendant company or does not belong to the act of ordinary business of the defendant company, and the non-party's act should be regarded as an act related to the execution of duties or affairs only when it appears to fall under the scope of the act of ordinary business of the defendant company because it is similar to the act of ordinary business of the non-party. In this case, there is no evidence

According to the testimony of the non-party witness in the ground of appeal, the non-party, as the managing director of the defendant company, provided the plaintiff with the check of the non-party's name issued by the defendant company as collateral and received money in return for the payment of the money from the plaintiff. If the plaintiff paid the money, the plaintiff would not give money to the plaintiff, and even according to the testimony that the defendant company's check of good financial standing is offered as collateral and borrowed money, the plaintiff's act of the non-party cannot be seen as an act of execution of his duties. However, the non-party's act cannot be seen as an act of execution of his duties, since the non-party's act is the non-party's deception, which is the managing director of the defendant company, and the non-party's act cannot be seen as an act of execution of his duties. The non-party's act of issuing the check of the non-party's name and borrowed money as collateral cannot be seen as an act of execution of the non-party's general business affairs. The court below's decision is justified in its reasoning.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)