In the case of internal restrictions on the representative's power of representation of a partnership, whether such restrictions may oppose against a bona fide third party.

In a case where the executive officers are appointed for a union and the executive officers are given authority to manage the affairs necessary for the management of the joint business within the union, and the executive officers shall have the authority to represent the union unless they exceed the business scope of the union with respect to the affairs of the union, so even though the articles of association, etc. restrict this authority internally, they cannot oppose against the third party acting in good faith.

Article 709 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Rehabilitation and Livelihood Cooperatives

Seoul Central District Court (65Ga5484) in the first instance trial

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff (Appellant) attorney shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 1,950,000 won with 6% per annum from June 1, 1965 to the full payment system.

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

The defendant (Appellant) attorney shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs were assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In full view of the testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 3, which is the president of the defendant's association, the non-party 2, who was the president of the defendant's association, on behalf of the defendant's association, issued 1,00,000 won at par value on February 10, 1965, payment date on May 30, 1965, and one promissory note with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City at face value on February 19, 1965; 350,000 won at face value on February 20, 1965; 60,000 won at face value on May 31, 1965; 200,00 won at face value on each of the above payment dates; 350,000 won at face value on each of the above payment dates; and 300,000 won at each of the above payment dates on each of the above promissory notes as the bearer of the non-party 3.

Defendant 2, although the representative of Defendant 2 was unable to borrow the bonds without the resolution of the association operation committee, the above promissory note was issued with the name of the head of Defendant 2 in collecting the loans for the interests of the non-party 2 without such resolution, and the Plaintiff knowingly acquired the above promissory note, and thus, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the above promissory note. Thus, the above promissory note cannot be issued on behalf of the association without the resolution of the association operation committee, even if it is stipulated in the articles of association of Defendant 2, the principal of the association can not issue the promissorysory note on behalf of the association, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary. When it grants the authority to conduct its affairs, the executor can perform the affairs necessary for the management of the joint business inside the association, as long as it does not exceed the scope of the association's business operation, and even if this authority was restricted within the association's articles of association, etc., the Plaintiff's act of acquiring the above promissory note cannot be viewed as an act of acquiring it in bad faith against the third party.

Then, although the defendant's legal representative asserts that the claim for this Promissory Notes has already been liquidated, the defendant paid the amount of this Promissory Notes to the defendant, or there is no evidence to acknowledge that the claim for this Promissory Notes against the defendant was extinguished due to any other reason, so the above assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of the above promissory note amounting to KRW 1,950,000 issued by the non-party 2 on behalf of the defendant association and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from June 1, 1965 to the full payment system. However, the court below recognized the starting point of the payment of the amount by the rate of 6% per annum as June 13, 1965 after the date when the bill was served to the defendant. Since the plaintiff did not appeal, the above starting point of calculation shall be recognized as June 13, 1965.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 1,950,000 won and the amount equivalent to 6% per annum from June 13, 1965 to the full payment system. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be justified within the above limit, and the remainder shall be dismissed by mistake. The original judgment, which is the same purport, is just, and the appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Park Jong-su (Presiding Judge)