Commercial employees under Articles 14 and 15 of the Commercial Act

The Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd., a merged company of the defendant company, shall establish a branch office with the approval of the competent Minister following the resolution of the board of directors, and the head of the branch office shall appoint and dismiss each Do office, but the head of the branch office shall deposit a certain amount as an accident security contract, and the head of the branch office shall deposit the branch office with the company as an accident security, and the head of the branch office shall execute or act on behalf of the head office, and the remuneration of the head of the branch office shall be paid in accordance with the amount of insurance solicitation. Thus, the Gyeong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. of the above company cannot be deemed a branch with an organization and authority to conduct the same business as the head office. Therefore, the head of the branch office shall not be deemed a commercial employee with the business owner of the branch office or a

Articles 14 and 15 of the Commercial Act

64Da605 delivered on September 22, 1964, and 67Da1333 delivered on September 26, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 2128 delivered on September 26, 1967, and Article 10(1)715 of the Commercial Act

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Korea Life Insurance Corporation

Busan District Court (63Ga20) of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 63Ga20)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below is revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 237,700 won with an annual interest rate of 6 percent from September 10, 1962 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in the first and second trials and the declaration of provisional execution.

On January 11, 1963, the non-party company was merged with the defendant company and the defendant company comprehensively succeeded to the right of the above non-party company, and the non-party 1 worked as the head of the above non-party company's ordinary south branch office from June 15, 1962 to September 15, 1962, the non-party 2, the non-party 2's witness's testimony at the court below, Gap evidence 1 (written request for withdrawal), Gap evidence 2 (written request for withdrawal), Eul evidence 3 (written request for acceptance), the witness's testimony at the court below and the court below's trial, and the non-party 3's testimony at the non-party 3's testimony at the court below and the court below's decision, the non-party 1 did not recognize the above non-party 1's testimony from the non-party 3's common wholesale market in Busan for life to the above non-party 1's above non-party 1's above company's remaining after the defendant 30.7.

However, the plaintiff's employees with the same authority as the manager of the main office or branch under Article 14 of the Commercial Act because the non-party 1 was the head office of the above company's Gyeongnam Branch, and therefore, the defendant company that merged the above company is obligated to pay the above price. Thus, the non-party 1's opinion as to whether the above non-party 1 is authorized as the expression manager of the non-party company's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''' ''' '' '' '' '' '' '' ''' '' ''' ''' '' '' '' '' '' ''' ''' '' '' '' '' ''' '' ''' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' ' ' ''' ' ' '''' ' ' '''''''' ' ''''''' ' ' ''' ' ''''' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ''' ' '''' '. ' ' ' '. ' '. '. '. '. ' '.

Then, the plaintiff asserts that the non-party 1's act of purchasing grain belongs to the non-party 1's right of representation and it is reasonable to believe that the non-party 1's act of purchasing grain belongs to the scope of the above right of representation, even though it is not so. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above white price since it is reasonable to believe that the above person's act of purchasing grain belongs to the above right of representation. Thus, the non-party 1's act of purchasing grain on behalf of the non-party 1's employee can be deemed as an act of purchasing grain on behalf of the above non-party 1's company's main business, but it is clear that the non-party 1's act of purchasing grain on behalf of the above non-party 1's employees is not an act of purchasing grain on behalf of the above non-party 1's main business, and it cannot be deemed that the non-party 1's act of purchasing grain on behalf of the above non-party 1's employees, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the above non-party 1's duty of representation 2's evidence and evidence 17.

Therefore, the claim against the defendant company on the premise that the non-party 1 is a manager of the life insurance company in East Asia or a commercial employee with the comprehensive power of attorney, who is a commercial employee with the above life insurance company's expression manager or representative, without making a decision on the remaining points, shall be dismissed. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and therefore the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)