In the form of a representative director of a defendant company, the non-party, who is a director of the defendant company, borrowed money on behalf of the defendant company, or the expressed representative director.

Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant Company, who used the name “salken president,” which appears to be a director of the Defendant Company to be entitled to represent the Company, has impliedly engaged in such act, cannot be exempted from liability in accordance with the legal doctrine of the expressed representative director with respect to the act of borrowing money from the Plaintiff, taking the name of “salken president,” which appears to be a director of the Defendant Company

Article 395 of the Commercial Act

Seoul High Court Decision 77Da2436 delivered on February 13, 1979 (Baly Article 395(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 395(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 395(1) of the Republic of Korea Act, Article 395(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 395(1) of the Commercial Act, Article

Plaintiff

Defendant Stock Company

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 62,684,798 won with interest rate of 25% per annum from April 8, 1982 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed when a deposit of KRW 10,000,000 as security is made.

The above judgment and provisional execution declaration

1. The plaintiff, as a director in charge of the funds of the defendant company, through the non-party 1 who is authorized to borrow money for the defendant company (the above 14,137,500 won on September 20, 1981, the due date for payment is April 7, 1982, the amount is KRW 13,162,50 on September 29, 1981, and the due date is March 31, 1982, the amount is 24,172,30 won on October 19, 1982, the due date for payment is 150 won on March 27, 1982, and the non-party 2's testimony is hard to recognize that the above 14,50 won on October 20, 1981 is non-party 1, 200 won on each of the above 14,0000 won on each of the above 1,500 square meters on each of the above statements.

2. Although the Plaintiff did not have legitimate authority to borrow money for the Defendant Company 1, the Defendant Company 1 and Nonparty 2 were able to use the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 2, the number of non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 2 were 5 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 9 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 were 1 and the non-party 1 were 2.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, Nonparty 1, a director of the Defendant Company, who used the name “salken president,” which appears to be entitled to represent the Defendant Company, and silented to do so, the Defendant Company cannot be exempted from liability in accordance with the legal doctrine of express representative director with respect to each act of borrowing money from the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances. However, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, as the chief of the business affairs of Nonparty 7, was aware of the internal relationship of the Defendant Company with the Defendant Company, as the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, was in trade with the Defendant Company, and it was well aware that Nonparty 1 was not entitled to represent the Defendant Company. However, if Nonparty 2’s testimony was collected from Nonparty 16 through 18, as seen earlier, Nonparty 7 continued to be in contact with the Defendant Company after being established by the Defendant Company’s general manager, and it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff did not have any authority to represent Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff did not have any other authority to represent the Defendant Company.

3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount borrowed by the non-party 1 on behalf of the plaintiff from the plaintiff 62,684,798 (the amount is KRW 14,137,50 + KRW 13,162,50 + KRW 24,172,30 + KRW 11,212,50 + KRW 62,684,80, and KRW 62,800 upon the plaintiff's claim) and damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum for the plaintiff within the above agreement from April 8, 1982 to the same day. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its implementation is justified, and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the burden of litigation costs, and Article 199 of the provisional execution declaration shall be applied to the provisional execution declaration.

Judges Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)