Cases of recognizing an expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act

The case holding that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the endorsement of bills by the person who has used the seal of the president while conducting daily business on behalf of the president who is the president as the vice president and the secretary general of the Korean Federation is authorized to act for the representative, even if the endorsement was conducted without the consent or approval of the representative

Article 126 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Gyeong-han, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na3768, 3769 delivered on June 29, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below is an incorporated association established with the aim of improving the economic, social, and cultural qualities of the Republic of Korea and contributing to the construction of a welfare society as part of its intended business, and established and operated the non-party association in order to achieve its intended business. The defendant or the above association has all of its offices within the defendant-owned building in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 121-81, and the non-party 1 is in charge of the president who is the representative of the non-party association, while the non-party 1 is registered as the director of the non-party association at the time of the issuance of the above promissorysory notes, and the vice-chairperson and the secretary-general were in charge of the defendant's affairs. The non-party 2, the representative of the defendant's office, is responsible for the defendant's work, and the seals and seals of the non-party 2 are kept in the non-party 2's office without the consent of the plaintiff and the non-party 2's vice-chairperson.

2. With respect to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant shall assume the responsibility for the expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Code, the court below determined that the defendant's federation shall pay employee's remuneration, public fee management and maintenance expenses, and disbursement affairs below 1,000,000 won per case to the non-party 1, a full-time vice-chairperson. The above bill is delivered only to the non-party 4, who is an employee of the plaintiff's association, through the non-party 5, who is the executive director of the non-party association and the director general of editing in the place of issuing the bill. The non-party's internal delegation provision or the non-party 1 did not know who it was made at all at the time of receiving the above bill, and there was no fact that the non-party 1 had the right to represent the plaintiff's office or the non-party 2's authority to represent the non-party 1, who was the representative of the non-party 5, to believe that the plaintiff's right to represent the plaintiff's association or the non-party 1's authority should not be justified.

However, according to the decision of the court below, the defendant federation established and operated the non-party 2's credit union which is a separate corporation under its control, and both the defendant and the non-party association are located in the defendant's office in the original office, and the non-party 1 is entrusted with the president of the non-party association while the non-party 2 is in charge of the president of the non-party association. The non-party 2, who is the representative of the defendant federation, is in charge of the principal of the Seoul Women's University. The defendant's office did not work and delegated the vice-chairperson and the secretary general with the authority to conduct the business of the defendant federation's daily affairs such as the payment of employee fees, etc. If necessary for the affairs of the defendant's daily affairs, the non-party 1 is authorized to use the seals of the non-party 2, who is in charge of the above affairs of the non-party 2's daily affairs on behalf of the chairman, and the above non-party 2, who is an employee of the non-party 4, who is an executive director of the above association.

The court below's determination of facts and rejection of the plaintiff's assertion as a representative of expression on the ground that the plaintiff was negligent in believing that the defendant's endorsement was legitimate in the acquisition of the above promissory note is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate grounds in the representation of expression. Therefore, this issue is justified.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)