Form and substantial requirements in representation of a bill act

In the case of acting on behalf of a bill, the phrase of an agent on behalf of the person himself/herself as a formal requirement shall be stated, and the person who has become an agent shall be authorized to act on behalf of the person himself/herself as a substantive requirement. However, the phrase of agent on behalf of the person himself/herself does not necessarily indicate the phrase "on behalf of the person himself/herself," and it is sufficient that the person who has affixed his/her name and affixed his/her seal on the bill generally appears to have done the act on behalf of another person, not on his/her own behalf. The existence of agency authority on behalf of the person is recognized

Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 114 of the Civil Act, Article 19 of the Private School Act

Oracil

Defendant Foundation

Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3359 delivered on February 13, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the original judgment, the court below found that the non-party 1 foundation changed its organization into the defendant foundation based on its timely evidence. The non-party 1 foundation is a foundation that maintains a new school. The non-party 2, who takes charge of the administration and accounting affairs of the above foundation, takes charge of the above foundation's executive secretary, issued a promissory note on September 24, 1963 on behalf of the non-party 3 who is the representative director of the above foundation (the non-party 4 foundation was jointly issued with the non-party 2 foundation) with its issuer's name "the non-party 1 foundation's executive secretary" and affixed the seals of the above foundation and the non-party 2's seal on behalf of the non-party 1 foundation. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal authority of the above foundation's signature and seal on behalf of the non-party 2 foundation, and it cannot be viewed that the non-party 1 foundation's signature and seal on behalf of the non-party 1 foundation was not a legitimate act.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)