The case holding that the issuance of a bill by an employee cannot be deemed to have been issued with respect to his office work.

In a motor vehicle sales agent business operated by the defendant, there is a person in charge of accounting other than the non-party A, who is a sales manager, and this promissory note, if the plaintiff received a direct endorsement transfer from the above "A" and used the above "A to trade with the defendant as the price for its own feed in which it is not related to the execution of its business, it cannot be deemed that the bill was issued with respect to the execution of the above "A"'s business.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Attorney Yang Sung-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant

More than the title

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 72Na713 delivered on March 8, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff's attorney is examined.

In light of the contents of the letter that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff (No. 8-1,2) before and after the letter, it is insufficient to view that the content of the letter was ratified by the Nonparty’s act of forging a promissory note, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact of ratification on the record, so the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion on this point cannot be said to have erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence, such as a theory of lawsuit, or by misapprehending the judgment of evidence.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the above non-party is the employee of the defendant who was in charge of the sales of the defendant company's company, as the plaintiff's employee. However, according to the witness Lee Jae-sub's testimony of the court of first instance, it can be known that there was a separate accounting manager except the above non-party, who is the sales manager, in the automobile sales agency operated by the defendant. Further, the promissory note of this case was directly accepted by the plaintiff from the above non-party, and used by the non-party for the transaction with the plaintiff as the sales price of the non-party's own total feed without any relation to its business execution.

In such a situation, it cannot be said that the bill was issued with respect to the execution of the affairs of the above non-party.

In addition, it is clear that the contents of No. 11-2 (a confirmation review of the fact of approval of a bill of commitment and its reply) are compared to the results of document verification in the court of first instance, and the issuance of the bill of this case also cannot be viewed as related to the execution of the affairs of the non-party. Accordingly, in this case, it is difficult to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to bear the burden of proof.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion on this point is just and there is no error of law such as lack of reason, contradiction of reason or incomplete hearing.

Therefore, all arguments are groundless and dismissed. The costs of appeal lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)