Cases falling within the scope of duties prescribed in Article 756 of the Civil Act

The act of issuing promissory notes and borrowing money in order to arrange loans to members of the branch office of the Construction Mutual Aid Association does not belong to the act of performing the original duties of the same association, but it seems that the act of borrowing money is similar to the act of performing the original duties of the head office or branch office of the same association when observing externally.

Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 1 of the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act

Plaintiff

Construction Financial Cooperative

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na58 delivered on September 28, 1972

We reverse the original judgment. The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

The court below acknowledged that, on August 7, 1969, the non-party 1, who is the head of the branch office of the defendant association, transferred the loan funds to the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 association by means of timely evidence, that the non-party 1 transferred the loan funds to the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 association with a monthly interest rate of 4 million won, the due date for payment shall be December 31 of the same year, and the due date for payment shall be December 31 of the same year that the non-party 1 issued the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 nationwide branch office of the non-party 1 who is the non-party 2's loan funds to the non-party 1 association with the non-party 1's opinion that the non-party 2's act of borrowing the loan funds to the non-party 1 association's original purpose is not sufficient to acknowledge the loan funds to the non-party 1 association's opinion.

However, according to the copy of the register of the defendant association under Article 1 of the Construction Cooperatives Act, the contents of the business of the defendant association include loan and loan brokerage for its members. Even if the defendant association borrowed money or loan brokerage for its members, according to the testimony of the non-party 1 witness in the first instance trial, the above money borrowed for the purpose of mediating the loan to its members, and the witness borrowed money from the plaintiff due to the lack of funds from the plaintiff's business operator, and there are several cases of borrowing money in the name of the head of the branch office prior to this case. According to the evidence No. 2 of the above case's testimony, the above non-party 1 borrowed money from the witness's testimony in another case's case's testimony and arranging the loan brokerage for the above method is under 100 conditions, and the defendant association's act of borrowing money without the consent of the head of the branch office's order for the above loan brokerage and the defendant association's testimony is not in violation of the law of the first instance court's original act of offering the loan brokerage and testimony.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)