Whether the employer of a cooperative is liable if the issuance of a promissory note without a cooperative is null and void.

Even if the issuance of promissory notes without a cooperative's name becomes invalid due to the violation of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the act is considered as a job act similar to the act of appearance in appearance, so the cooperative should be held liable as an employer.

Article 756(1) of the Civil Act; Article 125 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (Law No. 3121)

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1702 Decided February 7, 1967 (Article 756(49), 555 pages, 2298 of the Civil Act)

Gangwon-gu

Daegu milk cooperatives

Daegu District Court (81Gahap275)

The judgment below is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 5,250,000 won and the amount of 5% per annum from June 22, 1980 to August 18, 1982, and 25% per annum from August 19 of the same year to the full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be divided into three parts through the first and second instances, and the two parts shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 7,500,000 won and the amount of 6% per annum from June 22, 1980 to February 28, 1981, and 25% per annum from March 1 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part of the judgment against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim on this part is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The plaintiff is not entitled to dispute over the establishment of the non-party 4 through 20, Eul's No. 12-3 and Eul's No. 14-3 and Eul's No. 12-3. The non-party 1, who was the regular director of the defendant's association, issued the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1'

Thus, the defendant union can borrow funds only from the National Federation or military union pursuant to Article 125 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 3300 of Dec. 31, 1980), and it is possible to borrow funds from other institutions or individuals. Thus, the act of issuing the Promissory Notes in this case for the self financing of the defendant union, which is a regular member of the defendant union, is a kind of debt-bearing that belongs to a kind of loan and is null and void in violation of Article 125 of the same Act. However, according to the provisions of Articles 127 and 57-2 of the same Act and Article 11 (1) of the Commercial Act, the regular or extra-judicial power of the special agricultural cooperative is granted to the plaintiff, so the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case, which is the regular member of the defendant union, in relation to the plaintiff who is a bona fide third person, is considered to be similar to the act of his duties and thus, it is held liable for damages caused by the plaintiff's issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case.

Furthermore, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the invalidity of the Promissory Notes in the name of the defendant association issued by the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 as to the amount of damages is 7,50,000 won in total of the above recognition of loans made to the non-party 3 as a collateral. Meanwhile, according to the facts acknowledged above, if the plaintiff had paid more attention to the transfer of the Promissory Notes from the non-party by endorsement and thought, it would have been known that the issuance of the Promissory Notes for another person's own financing as in the case of this case would belong to this case. If the defendant would have paid more attention to the non-party, and it would have been possible to find that the Promissory Notes were invalid for the reasons of this case's above, but it would have been believed that the Promissory Notes were invalid for the reasons of this case's above, and thus, it would be reasonable to determine the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff to the non-party 3.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from June 22, 1980 to August 18, 1982, which is the date of this decision, and twenty five percent per annum under Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from August 19, 1982 to the date of this decision. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the judgment of the court below is justified, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed for this reason. Thus, the judgment below is erroneous in its conclusion, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Seo Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)