(a) Method of bill acts of a corporation;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of failing to deliberate or decide on the bona fide acquisition of promissory notes

A. In light of the nature and language of the bill act, the bill act of a juristic person must be done by a person who represents the juristic person's representative or representative on the face of the bill and is authorized to write his name in the name of the juristic person. If the bill act of a juristic person is not in accordance with the method of acting ( acting as an agent) without the authority of a representative, the bill act of a non-authorized representative must be done.

B. In light of the legal principles as to the acquisition of a promissory note by an unauthorized employee, the acquisition of the said promissory note cannot be deemed as due to the act of a non-authorized employee, unless it is based on the intention of the parties to the promissory note, and the transfer of the promissory note by the non-authorized employee is deemed as a defective bill, and thus, it should be examined as to whether A had acted in bad faith or gross negligence at the time of the acquisition of the said note in accordance with Article 16 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act.

(a) Articles 7(1), 8(b), 77 and 16 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act;

Supreme Court Decision 73Da1436 delivered on December 26, 1973, and 74Da965 delivered on September 24, 1974

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1567 delivered on December 13, 1978

[Judgment of the court below]

Lob Electric Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 84Na2350 delivered on May 17, 1985

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 of the Plaintiff’s Attorney are also examined.

(1) On September 16, 1983, the court below held that the defendant lost the above non-party company's right to use the above non-party company's bill at its face value at 10,000,000, and the place of issue and payment at 1984.1.9, each of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of payment, the payment, and one promissory note in the above non-party company as the price for goods. The above non-party company issued and delivered one of the promissory note to the above non-party company as the price for goods. The above non-party company's endorsement of the above face value with blank 10,000,00,000, and the above non-party company's name at 14:0,000,000 upon request of the non-party company to acquire the above non-party company's face value at 14:0,000,0000, and the above non-party company's name at 9:20,00,00,000.

(2) In light of the language and text of the bill act, a corporation’s act of bill must be done by a person who represents the corporation’s representative or representative on the face of the bill and delegates the authority to write his name and affix his/her seal to the corporation’s representative on the face of the bill. If the bill act is not in accordance with the method of acting ( acting ( acting) without the authority of a proxy, it shall be deemed an act of unauthorized representative.

In this case, as in the bill of this case, the endorsement of the legal person had already been written in blank and the endorsement of the legal person had been duly written. However, in the case where the promissory note of this case was received simply from the person who is named as an employee of the legal entity after the loss of the endorsed bill, this bill can be transferred only by the simple delivery, and in light of the legal principles as to the act of the promissory note of the unauthorized Representative as mentioned above, the acquisition of the Promissory Notes of this case cannot be deemed as the act of the unauthorized Representative unless the employee without the above authority is an act of the Promissory Notes. However, it is reasonable to view that the promissory note of this case was transferred from an unentitled person, which was distributed without the intention of the parties to the bill of this case.

Therefore, the court below should determine whether the Plaintiff, who was transferred the Promissory Notes in accordance with Article 16 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, was in bad faith or with gross negligence at the time of acquiring the said Promissory Notes.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim solely on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to acquire the Promissory Notes from the legitimate representative authority. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a proxy act of a promissory note, or in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the bona fide acquisition of a promissory note, and the grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

(3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)