[1] The scope of "third party" under Article 126 of the Civil Code as an expression agent for a bill of exchange

[2] Requirements to recognize the representation of expression under Article 126 of the Civil Code as to Article 126 of the act of a bill

[3] In a case where an endorsement on a bill is forged by an employee, the relationship between the tort liability borne by the remitter as the employer and the liability under the bill law borne by other endorsers (=each separate responsibility) and the amount of damages sustained by the holder of the bill by acquiring the forged bill (=amount paid to acquire)

[1] The provisions of the Civil Act concerning expression agency shall apply or apply mutatis mutandis to Article 2 of the act of a bill. However, since the person who can claim the application of the provisions is the other party to the act of a bill, the third party purchaser of a bill may exercise his/her right in the bill against the person who has forged the bill by using it in cases where the third party to the act of a bill is recognized

[2] As to Article 126 of the Civil Code, to recognize the representation of a bill as an expression of intent under Article 126 of the Civil Code, there must be justifiable grounds to believe that a forged person has the authority to act on a bill. Such justifiable grounds can be affirmed if it is natural to objectively observe the various circumstances existing at the time of the act on a bill and to believe that there is an ordinary act, and if the act on a bill is performed in particular in light of the general transaction concept, unless special circumstances exist, if the other party fails to investigate and confirm whether the forged person has the authority to act on a bill, and if the other party fails to investigate and confirm his/her intent, it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason.

[3] In case where an endorsement on a bill is forged by an employee, the person who is the forged person, as the employer, and the responsibility under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, as the holder of the bill, shall be separate and independent, regardless of whether or not he is able to exercise his rights under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, shall be entitled to claim damages against the person who is the counterfeited person. In this case, damages incurred by acquiring the forged bill shall be the amount paid to acquire the bill, not its face value.

[1] Article 126 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 126 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 393, 756, and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da21751 decided Nov. 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 1369), Supreme Court Decision 91Da3994 decided Jun. 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1906), Supreme Court Decision 93Da21521 decided May 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1814), / [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da40146 decided Jun. 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 193) (Gong294, 194, 1814), Supreme Court Decision 93Da29494 decided Jun. 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2193) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da299494 decided Jun. 194, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Da19429429494Da1949494949494, Apr.294294.

Kim Dong-dong (Attorney Lee Woo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 97Na13717 delivered on May 15, 1998

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning employer liability is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below comprehensively based on the evidence adopted in its judgment, and found that the Promissory Notes in this case (hereinafter referred to as the " Promissory Notes in this case") issued by Co-Defendant 1 at the court of first instance at the face value of KRW 30,00,000 at the face value, and acquired it from Co-Defendant 1 at the meeting of the defendant and Co-Defendant 2 at the meeting of the court of first instance, and refused payment at the meeting of the plaintiff on October 25, 1995, the due date for which the plaintiff acquired it from Co-Defendant 1 at the meeting of the plaintiff and the Co-Defendant 2 at the meeting of the court of first instance. The Promissory Notes in this case, which is the name of the defendant, received necessary materials from Co-Defendant 1 at the meeting of Co-Defendant 1 at the meeting of the defendant, and issued them for the payment security of the payment obligation, and then the Co-Defendant 1 who had worked at the meeting of the defendant's manager at the meeting of the defendant's name or the seal affixed.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is liable to act as an agent for an endorsement in the name of the defendant on behalf of the non-party 1, on the ground that there is no evidence to find that the non-party 1 issued a promissory note in the previous name of the defendant and delivered to the gambling center in a normal manner, or that the bill was actually actually issued to the defendant by the gambling center, or that there is no evidence to find that the gambling center actually issued the bill in this case to the defendant, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim

Furthermore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, as the non-party 1's employer, was liable to the non-party 1 with respect to the act of forging the bill as above, on the ground that the non-party 1's act of endorsement in the name of the defendant in the bill of this case belongs to his act of performing his duties or it does not appear within the scope of its externally similar, and even if his act of performing duties belongs to his own household affairs, there is no proof that the plaintiff's refusal of the payment of the bill of this case received from the plaintiff in this case caused damage to the plaintiff by refusing to pay the bill of this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The provisions of the Civil Act concerning the expression agency of a bill apply or apply mutatis mutandis to the above Article of the act of a bill. However, since the person who is entitled to assert the application of the provisions in this case directly belongs to the other party to the act of a bill, the third purchaser of a bill may exercise his/her rights over the bill against the person who has forged the bill by using it in cases where it is recognized that the other party to the act of the bill is the direct expression agency of the bill (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Da2310, Sept. 9, 1986; 96Da21751, Nov. 28, 197). However, in cases of the above Article of the bill, the third purchaser of the bill may exercise his/her rights over the bill against the other party to the bill, unless there is a justifiable reason to believe that the other party has the authority to act of forgery and the other party to act of forgery and the other party to act of forgery and the other party to act of the bill.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the other party to the endorsement in the name of the defendant, which was forged by the non-party 1, may be deemed as the stuff in light of the series of endorsementss, etc., and therefore, if there are justifiable grounds to believe that the defendant's endorsement was effective in acquiring the bill of this case, the plaintiff who acquired the bill of this case from the stuffs may be held liable to act as an expression to the defendant. However, although the stuffs demand the co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance to receive the bill of this case to receive the defendant's endorsement on the bill of this case, he did not face the defendant at the time when the bill of this case was delivered by the co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance, and he did not know that the defendant's endorsement was made in any way, as well as that the defendant's endorsement was made in any way, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no reasonable ground to believe that the defendant's ordinary settlement was made through the transaction relation between the co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance and the defendant.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion in the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the responsibility of expression representation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is not acceptable.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As long as the principle of apparent representation in the Civil Act is applied mutatis mutandis to this Article of a bill, in order to hold the holder of the bill liable for the endorsement by an unauthorized person's acting as an agent or acting as an agent, all the requirements must be satisfied to recognize the apparent representation in order to hold the holder of the bill liable for the endorsement. If the requirements are not satisfied, even if the holder of the bill has trusted the appearance of endorsement, such external trust alone cannot be held liable for the holder of the bill of exchange against the holder of the bill.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, since the plaintiff trusted that the defendant's endorsement under the bill of this case was conducted by the defendant's employee's wrong management and the plaintiff trusted the appearance of the endorsement, the defendant can be seen as separate from the assertion that he is responsible under the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. However, as long as the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that he is responsible under the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act as seen above, such judgment does not contain the purport of rejecting the plaintiff's assertion based on the above external responsibility, it cannot be viewed as including the purport of rejecting the plaintiff's assertion based on the above external responsibility. Thus, there is no violation

4. As to the third ground for appeal

"Administrative affairs, which are the requirement for employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act," means, when an employee's unlawful acts are objectively deemed to be related to the employer's business activities or office performance, without considering the actor's subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the employee's office and tort, and whether it is objectively related to the employer's office and work performance should be determined by considering the degree of the employee's inherent duty and tort, as well as the degree of the employer's responsibility for causing losses and failing to take preventive measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Da1923, Nov. 22, 198; 93Da4586, Mar. 22, 1994; 97Da16572, Oct. 10, 197; 196. 2. 196; 2. 3. 4. 196 . 196 . 3 . 196 - - -2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.

In light of the above legal principles, if Nonparty 1, who had been employed by the accounting division at a business entity operated by the Defendant, kept the Defendant’s seal, issued a bill check, etc. at the Defendant’s direction while keeping the Defendant’s seal, and reached an endorsement on the bill of this case with the Defendant’s seal kept in custody, the act of Nonparty 1’s act can be objectively deemed to be related to the execution of the business. Therefore, if the endorsement under the Defendant’s name was forged because it had been done at his own discretion without the Defendant’s consent, then the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff, who acquired the bill of this case with the belief that the endorsement under the Defendant’s name is true, as the employer, and the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the tort against the Plaintiff who acquired the bill of this case. In addition, the Defendant’s liability should be limited to the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the head of the gambling for the purpose of acquiring the bill of this case, regardless of whether or not the joint Defendant 1 or the head of the gambling is otherwise liable under the Bill Act.

However, the court below held that, inasmuch as Nonparty 1’s act of forging endorsement cannot be deemed objectively deemed as falling under his/her business performance objectively, and the Plaintiff denied the Defendant’s employer’s liability asserted by the Plaintiff on the ground that there was no proof as to the amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the bill of this case, it ultimately commits an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the employer’s liability and the scope of damages arising therefrom, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Of

In addition, according to the records, even if the defendant did not assume the responsibility under the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes, the defendant, as the user of the non-party 1, had the claim that the non-party 1 had the employer's liability for the act of forging the bill as above, on the first day of pleading (the preparatory document dated April 17, 1998). The claim on the employer's liability can be viewed as the claim on the ground of the claim for damages, which constitutes a separate subject matter of lawsuit, rather than the method of attack and defense against the claim of this case that the plaintiff had been committed from the court of first instance. Thus, the court below should have clearly stated the purport of the plaintiff's above assertion and stated the conclusion of its judgment in the text.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the plaintiff's claim on the employer's responsibility is merely an attack and defense method, and rejected it in its reasoning, but did not mention it in the order, thereby misunderstanding the legal principles as to the subject matter of a lawsuit and preventing the violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the failure to exercise the right of explanation. Therefore, this point also points out.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding employer liability is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)