Act of borrowing money by private school principals and liability for damages by school juristic persons;

Even if the act of borrowing money of the principal of a school foundation under Busan Metropolitan City is deemed an act of borrowing money, if the supervisory authority over the act of borrowing money is null and void due to the lack of permission or a resolution of the board of directors, or if the act of borrowing money is used as a new construction fund of the school foundation under Busan Metropolitan City, it is reasonable to deem the act of borrowing money to be an act of performing the affairs of the juristic person in appearance. Therefore, the juristic person is liable to compensate the other party for damages equivalent to the borrowed money by acquiring money by acquiring money as if

Article 756 of the Civil Act, Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act

Large Transportation Corporation

Defendant School Foundation

Daegu District Court (86 Gohap729) in the first instance

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As the primary claim, the defendant pays to the plaintiff the amount of 11,028,700 won with 20% per annum from March 30, 1985 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought;

As a preliminary claim, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,028,700 won with the amount of 5% per annum from March 31, 1985 to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the claim and cause of the preliminary claim of this case, and 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Judgment as to the main claim

The plaintiff asserts that on March 30, 1984, interest amounting to KRW 11,028,70 shall be 2% per month, and on March 30, 1985, the due date for payment shall be determined and lent to the defendant corporation. Thus, the part of the testimony of the court below's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's 1,281, and 181.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

As seen above, the above borrowing act by Nonparty 1 is invalid against the defendant corporation. However, in full view of the entries in No. 2 (Certificate) and No. 3 (No. 2) without dispute in its establishment and the whole purport of the pleading in the witness testimony (excluding the portion not trusted in the above), Nonparty 1 did not notify the plaintiff at the time of borrowing the above facts without the resolution of the board of directors of the defendant corporation or the permission of the supervisory authority, but did not use it as a new gynasium construction fund of the above school under the defendant corporation, and it can be recognized that the above facts were borrowed from the plaintiff, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 1 borrowed money from the plaintiff as above from the plaintiff as an act concerning the execution of the affairs of the defendant corporation.

Thus, as the employer of Nonparty 1, the defendant corporation is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the damages of the above borrowed money that the non-party 1 violated the Private School Act and caused to the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff as if the defendant corporation borrowed the above money.

However, in full view of the whole purport of the argument in the above evidence, the plaintiff can be found that the non-party 1's act was followed by the procedure prescribed by the Private School Act in lending the above money to the non-party 1, and the defendant corporation and the non-party 1's financial and operational status at the time were not carefully examined. The above plaintiff's negligence does not reach the extent of exemption from the above defendant corporation's liability for damages, and thus, it should be considered in determining the scope of liability. In light of the above acknowledged facts, it is reasonable to determine the amount to be compensated to the plaintiff by the defendant corporation as KRW 8,00,000, when considering the above negligence of the plaintiff in light of the above acknowledged facts.

3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages with 5% annual interest rate of 25% per annum of the lawsuit under the Civil Procedure Act until April 16, 1987, which is the date of the above tort and 8,000,000 won and after the date of the above tort (the plaintiff is entitled to pay damages with 5% per annum of 25% per annum of the year from the day following the day when the copy of the application for the conjunctive claim and additional claim is served, but it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the damages of this case until the date of the original judgment. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages with 25% per annum of the lawsuit under the Special Act for the Settlement, etc. of Legal Proceedings, since the plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case is justified only within the extent of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's main claim and the remainder of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall not be dismissed for the reason that the plaintiff's appeal shall not be dismissed as per the judgment of the court below.

Judge Cho Soo-soo (Presiding Judge)