The case holding that it is not erroneous for the director of the accounting division of a corporation to recognize the company's liability and to recognize that there is no negligence on the part of the person who borrowed the money when he borrowed the forged revenue slip by stealing the name and seal (the registered in the bank) of the representative director of the corporation already resigned.

The case holding that it is not erroneous in recognizing the company's employer liability and recognizing that there is no negligence on the person who lent money, in case where the director of the accounting division of the company borrows forged money by misappropriation of the name and seal of the representative director of the company who already resigned.

Article 756 of the Civil Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act (Article 396)

Plaintiff

Defendant Stock Company

Jeonju District Court Decision 71Na189 delivered on February 24, 1972, Jeonju District Court Decision 71Na189 delivered on February 24, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal:

The facts duly admitted by the court below are as follows.

In other words, the non-party 1, who is a director in charge of the accounting of the defendant company for about 10 years and has been engaged in cash receipts and disbursements affairs, provided 30,00 won per share as security on February 25, 1971 and 1.3 million won per share on March 25, 1971 as of the date of issuance of Gun branch of the National Bank of Korea to the defendant company, and borrowed 3,000,000 won from the plaintiff to the defendant company under the same condition as 1. At that time, the non-party 1 had already been holding the name and seal of the non-party 2, who already resigned from the representative director of the defendant company (the 1969. 6. 6. 196. 2. 16. 196. 2. 16. 196. 2. 2. 196. 2. 2. 196. 2.

Therefore, even if the non-party 2 resigned from the position of the representative director in fact during the above transaction period, there is no error in the judgment of the court below that there is no negligence on the part of the plaintiff as the opposing opinion that the plaintiff cannot be expected to make a transaction after confirming who is the representative director of the defendant and whose change is made, and that there is no reason to attack the original judgment, as well as to criticize the plaintiff as a unilateral opinion that is legitimate evidence preparation and fact-finding.

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

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)