In cases where the regular agent of an agricultural cooperative issues a promissory note in the name of the cooperative, whether the guarantee liability for the guarantee can be recognized without examining whether the act falls under the scope of the purpose of the corporation.

In light of the provisions of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the agricultural cooperatives cannot issue promissory notes to guarantee the fulfillment of obligations by others, and the regular agent of the agricultural cooperatives is not authorized to issue cashier’s checks. Thus, even if the regular agent of the agricultural cooperatives issues promissory notes, it cannot be deemed as part of the agricultural cooperatives’ duties or related matters.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Epicts

Attorney Yang Sung-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na2766 delivered on May 14, 1974

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant’s Attorney;

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, if the non-party issued the above promissory note as a regular agent of the defendant association at the request of the non-party 2's senior director, the non-party's right to issue the above promissory note shall be 1,927,190 won per each holder of the above promissory note, and the plaintiff acquired the above promissory note at 1,927,190 won. The above promissory note shall not be deemed as null and void as it was issued for purposes other than the business capacity of the defendant association. The court below held that the non-party 2's right to issue the above promissory note as an agent of the defendant association was not an unlawful act of the non-party 9, and it shall not be deemed that it was an unlawful act of the non-party 1,6, and it shall not be deemed that it was an unlawful act of the non-party 1, as it was used for the above business under the name of the non-party 2's regular agent of the defendant association, and it shall not be deemed that it was an unlawful act of the non-party 1, as the defendant association.

Therefore, the appeal pointed out this point is with merit without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the part against the defendant among the original judgment is reversed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)