The case holding that it becomes an expression agent in excess of authority

For about 10 years prior to Busan District Court Decision 10 years prior to the issuance of a check at the time when the Nonparty kept the seals of the Defendant Company’s check and the representative director, and issued a check at the time of purchase of raw materials, etc., if the Nonparty issued a check with the consent of the Defendant Company’s representative director, then the Nonparty issued the check at the time, without the consent or authorization of the Defendant Company, if the Nonparty issued the check at the same time with the check and the seal already kept for his own financing purpose, then the Nonparty issued the check by using the check and the seal already kept without the consent or authorization of the Defendant Company, as an expression agent beyond the authority of Article 128 of the Civil Act, and its effect extends to the Defendant Company.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292Da743 delivered on August 18, 1960 (Supreme Court Decision 6945 delivered on June 69, 196, Article 126(14)247 of the Civil Act) 68Da2186 delivered on December 23, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 979Da179 and 980 delivered on December 23, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 17No204 delivered on June 17, 196, Article 126(56)253 of the Civil Act, Article 468(6)103 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Monopolym Industry Co.

Busan District Court (67Ga155)

Supreme Court Decision 68Da2186 Decided December 23, 1969

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,200,000 and the amount at the rate of 6% per annum from November 15, 1966 to the date of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,200,000 and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the following day of service to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution thereof shall be sought.

The same shall apply to the order.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative asserted that the Plaintiff’s lawful holder of one copy of the date check dated November 15, 1966, which was the date of the issuance of the Plaintiff’s check, was presented to the above payment bank on November 14, 1966, and thus, the Defendant’s legal representative director, representative director, and non-party 1’s one copy of the check (Evidence A) was presented to the Defendant. In light of the whole purport of the parties’ pleadings, the Plaintiff’s legal representative rejected its establishment, and the Plaintiff’s legal representative did not issue the seals to Nonparty 5 to 12, and Nos. 4 to 6, respectively, and Nonparty 2 issued the seals to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1’s legal representative director’s consent to the purchase of the goods of the Defendant company at Busan for about 10 years before the issuance of the checks. From June 196, the Plaintiff already issued the seals to Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1’s legal representative director’s consent to the purchase of the goods under his/her name.

Thus, barring special circumstances, the non-party 3 believed that the non-party 2 had the right of representation on the issuance of the instant check to the non-party 2, and the non-party 2's act of issuing the instant check constitutes a case where there are justifiable grounds to believe it. Thus, the validity of the act of issuing the instant check extends to the defendant company as an expression agent beyond the authority under Article 128 of the Civil Code. Thus, the above evidence No. 1 (number of Cases) is recognized (the authenticity of the documentary evidence is not the authenticity made by the name holder, but it is not the authenticity made by the holder of the documentary evidence, and it is recognized that the authenticity has been made by the person asserted by the holder of the documentary evidence, so the instant check was made by the non-party 2, who is the holder of the instant check, and the fact that the plaintiff presented it to the said payment bank on November 14, 196, but the payment was

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, for which there is no dispute in the establishment, the defendant lost the check, the defendant applied for a public summons to the Busan District Court for the declaration of invalidation on the ground that it lost the check, and the above court had a judgment of nullification declared the invalidity of the check on January 31, 1967 through its procedure. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above judgment of nullification and won the lawsuit against the above judgment of nullification in the first instance, but the defendant appealed and still remains pending in the second instance.

Therefore, since the check becomes invalid as a check by the passive effect of the above nullification judgment, it is not a person who has been stolen or lost, and even if the plaintiff filed an application for this public summons with the knowledge that he is a legitimate right holder, as above, even if the previous check had already been subject to a nullification judgment as to the previous check, and the judgment of cancellation has not been confirmed by the lawsuit of objection against this judgment, the plaintiff as the legitimate holder of the previous check cannot claim the payment of the check by asserting the substantial right on the check. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for payment of the previous check cannot be rejected.

Next, according to the causal relation between the issue of this check and the issue of this check by the Plaintiff’s attorney, the Defendant received a loan from Nonparty 3 to purchase raw materials or to return the price and the borrowed money. The Plaintiff sold and transferred the goods to Nonparty 3. However, Nonparty 3 was unaware of a large amount of check, which led to Nonparty 3’s failure to pay for the amount of the check and the loan to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff asserted that, in subrogation of Nonparty 3, the Plaintiff sought the payment of the amount of the check, the amount of the goods and the loan to the Defendant. However, as recognized above, Nonparty 2 requested the exchange with cash for the cash for his own own financial book and delivered it to Nonparty 3, the Defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge that there was a non-business relationship between the Defendant and Nonparty 3. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for objection is without merit, the original judgment that is to dismiss it is improper to dismiss it. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs, since it is revoked by Article 386 of the same Act.

Judges Sap-ho (Presiding Judge) the highest number of judges