In the event that other person directly puts his name and affixes his seal to a bill and performs an act of bill without authority, if there is a reason to believe that the third person has the authority to perform such act of bill and there is a reason to assume the responsibility to the principal, it shall be interpreted that he is responsible to the principal as in the expression agency for transaction safety.

In the event that other person directly puts his name and affixes his seal to a bill and performs an act of bill without authority, if there is a reason to believe that the third person has the authority to perform such act of bill and there is a reason to assume the responsibility to the principal, it shall be interpreted that he is responsible to the principal as in the expression agency for transaction safety.

Article 8 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 125 of the Civil Code, Article 126 of the Civil Code

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Dong Bank interest business corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na933 delivered on May 14, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na933 delivered on July 14, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Defendant’s Attorney examined the grounds of appeal;

The above act of using a promissory note is an act of using the name of the non-party 1's representative director under the name of the non-party 2's name and/or the non-party 1's name when the non-party 2 acts of using the above promissory note. If the non-party 1's name and/or the non-party 2's name and/or the non-party 1's name and/or the non-party 2's name and/or the non-party 3's name and/or the non-party 1's name and/or the non-party 2's name and/or the non-party 2's name and/or the non-party 1's name and/or the non-party 2's name and/or the non-party 1's name and/or the non-party 2's name and/or the non-party 3's name and/or the non-party 1's name and/or the non-party 2's name and/or the non-party 1's name.

Therefore, according to the above facts, even if the above non-party 2 did not have the right to issue a promissory note in the name of the representative director of the defendant company, it is reasonable to view that the above non-party 2 performs the business on behalf of the representative director with respect to the accounting affairs of the defendant company, among the internal affairs of the defendant company, which are active for the defendant representative director in light of the status and authority as the managing director in charge of the accounting affairs of the defendant company. As seen above, in light of a large number of promissory notes transactions made through the non-party 3, the above non-party 2 trusted that the above non-party 2 has the right to issue a promissory note in the name of the defendant representative director as the managing director in charge of the accounting affairs of the defendant company, it cannot be said that the above non-party 3 or the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have

Therefore, the grounds of appeal are difficult to be employed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)