(a) Whether the agency for the head of a branch office of a securities company is an employee who has the name of business operator prescribed in Article 14 of the Commercial Act or other similar name;

(b) Whether the representative of a branch office of a securities company is subject to the scope of power of representation for concluding a loss-sharing agreement with customers; and

A. Generally, a director representative of a branch office of a securities company can be inferred from the name itself as to the existence of a superior employee. Thus, it cannot be deemed an employee with the name of business operator under Article 14 of the Commercial Act or any other similar name, and it is reasonable to view it as an employee who has been delegated with specific types of business or specific matters under Article 15 of the Commercial Act as an employee with the partial comprehensive power of attorney.

B. According to Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act, a branch office representative of a securities company, in particular, is prohibited from entering into an agreement for loss-sharing of liabilities of a securities company between a branch office and a client, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, to enter into an agreement for loss-sharing of liabilities of a securities company between the head office and the customer, in light of the fact that a securities company or its officers and employees promise to assume all or part of the loss incurred from trading securities to the customer.

(a) Articles 14 and 15 of the Commercial Act; Article 15 of the same Act; Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Da107 delivered on October 25, 1983 (Gong1983, 1739), 93Da36974 delivered on December 10, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 351). Supreme Court Decision 79Da2156 delivered on December 23, 1980 (Gong1981, 13513), 93Da26205 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong194, 687)

Attorney Shin Sung-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant Lee-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na2832 delivered on August 20, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The records are examined. The court below's decision that it is reasonable to consider that the defendant comprehensively delegated the management of the accounts operated with the defendant's funds, including stock transaction to the non-party's non-party branch office representative, is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. The grounds for appeal are without merit.

2. Generally, the representative director of a branch office of a securities company is able to estimate the existence of superior employees from its name. Thus, it is reasonable to see that the representative director of a branch office of a securities company is an employee who is delegated with the specific type of business or specific matters prescribed in Article 15 of the Commercial Act, and is an employee who has the partial comprehensive power of attorney concerning its business. In particular, according to Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act, it is prohibited that a securities company or its officers and employees should bear all or part of the loss incurred from the securities transaction and are promising the customer to incur all or part of the loss incurred from the securities transaction, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, entering into a loss-sharing agreement such as this case between the representative director and the customer of a securities company and the securities company constitutes the scope of the above power of attorney.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that, even if there was an agreement between the plaintiff company, the head of a branch office, and the non-party, as alleged by the defendant, to the effect that the defendant had the meaning of exemption from liability against the defendant in relation to the plaintiff company and the defendant as alleged by the defendant, the act of exemption from liability is not within the scope of the duty delegated by the securities company, and it is not within the scope of the duty delegated by the securities company, and therefore it constitutes an act due to an act of unauthorized Representation which cannot affect the plaintiff company, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the partial comprehensive power of attorney as provided in Article 15 of the Commercial Act, such as theory of lawsuit.

3. The former Regulations on Credit Extension of Securities Companies (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13588, Sep. 20, 190) and the former Regulations on the Procedure, etc. for Adjustment of Amounts of Securities Companies (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1350, Sep. 20, 199) have the purpose of preventing excessive speculative transactions and contributing to protecting public interests or investors by allowing a securities company to promptly collect credit transaction loans or outstanding amounts of money. Thus, it cannot be deemed that a securities company has a duty to dispose of securities without delay in relation to its customer, except where the securities company is subject to supervision by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is a supervisory agency pursuant to each of the above provisions. Meanwhile, if a securities company fails to pay a credit transaction loan or purchase price to a securities company and appropriates the disposal price for the credit transaction loan or purchase price for the securities company, the securities company, which is a securities sales company, bears a general transaction obligation to take measures to minimize customer losses by taking full account of due care as a good manager. However, it cannot be seen that a securities company has violated its duty of care to dispose of stocks without delay.

In light of the records, before September 20, 1990, the court below rejected the defendant's claim of offsetting the negligence on the ground that the customer of the securities company delayed the repayment of the loan or the outstanding amount, the securities company did not have a duty to trade the opposite without delay, and there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff company delayed the notification of the occurrence of the outstanding amount to the defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence or the principle of good faith, such as the theory of lawsuit. We do not agree with the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)