In case where a person who is or was a representative director of the company prepares a payment memorandum of the promissory note in the name of the company with the consent of the representative director at the time of his employment for the purpose of complying with the issuer of the promissory note issued at the time of his employment, whether it can be deemed that

In preparing a statement of payment in the name of the company with respect to the said promissory note with the consent of the representative director at the time when the person who held office as the representative director of the company is employed, if such statement is prepared with the consent of the representative director at the time, it shall not be deemed as a true document which contains the qualification of

Attorney Kang In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Attorney Kang Jin-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 74No7468 delivered on May 23, 1975

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal by Attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, on August 30, 1973, when the defendant is the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, the defendant issued one promissory note which became the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation in the name of the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, and paid the non-indicted 1,000,000 won for the payment of the par value, and then resigned from the above representative director as of December 29 of the same year after he paid the non-indicted 1, 1973, and transferred the name of the above company to the non-indicted 2, and at the same time, the defendant changed the name of the above company to the non-indicted 2, 31, 1974, after changing the name of the non-indicted 1 corporation to the non-indicted 2, 1974, the court below recognized that the defendant prepared the above certificate of qualification to be the non-indicted 1 corporation's representative director at the same time and accepted the above qualification of the non-indicted 2 corporation as the above company's representative director.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, since the holder of the title in this case is the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 1 corporation was the representative director of the above company at the time, he was entitled to prepare the same document as this case's name on behalf of the above company. According to the records, the reason why this case's name was prepared is prepared as a payment note for the above promissory note issued at the time when the defendant was in office of the representative director of the above company, and it is evident that the defendant was prepared with the consent of the representative director at the time of the above issuance of the above promissory note with the above contents. Thus, if the defendant prepared this case's name with the consent of the person with the authority to prepare this case's name, it cannot be deemed that the document was prepared with the consent of the person with the authority to prepare this case's name with the qualification of the other person, but the court below did not have the authority to grant the above present representative director's qualification and the consent cannot be deemed to be valid. Thus, the judgment of the court below has reversed the legal principles as to this conclusion.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)