The act of the head of the defendant corporation and the name holder of the defendant corporation;

Even if the defendant company used the name of the head of the Busan Busan Business Office of the defendant company to the non-party, the defendant company's Busan Business Office is a single store subordinate to the defendant company. The head of the business office is a person who is an employee of the defendant company, so that he can do his own business on his own account using the name of the defendant company.

Article 24 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da2270 delivered on March 18, 1969 76Da955 delivered on September 28, 1976 (Article 24(7)718 of the Commercial Act, Court Gazette 547No9366 delivered on September 28, 197)

Plaintiff

Defendant Maritime Fire Insurance Corporation

Busan District Court (76Ga997)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's appeal corresponding to the above cancellation are all dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 9,00,000 won with co-defendant 1 of the lower judgment and to the plaintiff 5,000,000 won with 25 percent per annum for the remaining 4,00,000 won from March 17, 1976 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,00,000 and the amount of KRW 1,700,000,000 with an annual rate of 5% from March 17, 1976 to the remaining amount of KRW 1,30,000,00.

The judgment that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials.

Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second trials.

If Non-Party 1’s testimony and evidence Nos. 1 and 2, which can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of Non-Party 1, the witness of the court below, and Non-Party 2’s testimony of the court below, gather together the results of the plaintiff himself examination at the court below and the whole purport of the parties’ arguments, the plaintiff requested for a loan from Non-Party 3, who was at the time of the head of the defendant company’s Busan Busan, for the funds needed for the operation of the defendant company’s Busan, and on February 16, 1976, the plaintiff agreed to provide two copies of the attached list Nos. 1 and 2, which were used in the attached list Nos. 3 and the official seal used in the above business office, and were delivered two copies of the above check, which are endorsed by the defendant company’s head of Busan, as a collateral, to the non-party 3 as of the above two copies of the check, and there is no other counter-proof evidence.

The plaintiff first, since the non-party 3's act of borrowing the above loans on behalf of the defendant company, it is argued that the defendant company is responsible for the payment of the above loans. Thus, the non-party 3's testimony part of the court below's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's testimony part of the non-party 5 and the non-party 6's testimony as follows are hard and different in light of the business scope of the defendant company's Busan Busan business office and the testimony of the non-party 5 and the non-party 6's testimony. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

Second, the defendant company asserted that the above act of endorsement by the non-party 3 is a joint and several surety in borrowing the above money from the plaintiff of co-defendant 1, who is the issuer of each of the above checks, but as recognized above, the person who borrowed the above money is not co-defendant 1 of the court below, but is the non-party 3, the above argument does not need to be seen further.

Third, even if the non-party 3 did not have the right of representation from the defendant company in borrowing the above money, he is deemed to have basic power of representation within the scope of the business of the defendant company and the above act of borrowing the above money is related to the business of the defendant company externally. Thus, the defendant company is responsible for paying the above money in accordance with the legal doctrine of acting as an expression agent of authority. Even if it is not so, the non-party 3 is a commercial employee of the defendant company as a commercial employee of the defendant company, and the defendant company is responsible for repaying the above money. Thus, as seen below, the non-party 3's act of borrowing the above money against the former does not appear to be related to the defendant company externally, and even if the plaintiff's former act of borrowing the above money does not appear to have any justifiable reason to believe that the non-party 3 was authorized to borrow the above money on behalf of the defendant company, and even if the non-party 3 constitutes the expression manager of the defendant company, the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 of the court below's appeal.

Fourth, the defendant company allowed the non-party 3 to use the name of the head of the defendant company's business office in the external relationship, and therefore, the plaintiff argued that the non-party 3 is liable to pay the above amount of money borrowed by the plaintiff as a business owner. However, as seen below, the defendant company's Busan Busan business office is a single store subordinate to the defendant company, and if the non-party 3 is only one of the employees of the defendant company, and as such, it is no evidence to recognize that the non-party 3 was permitted to conduct its own business under his own account by using the name of the defendant

Fifth, the non-party 3, as an employee of the defendant company, obtained the above money by deceiving the plaintiff in the same way as the above recognition as if he borrowed the above money from the defendant company's office for the necessity of Busan. Thus, the defendant company is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above money which the plaintiff caused to the execution of the business. Thus, the non-party 3, Eul's evidence 1, 14, 15, and non-party 1, 5, 7, 8 (excluding the part which is not trusted in the court below), the court below's and the non-party 6, and the non-party 9's witness's testimony and the whole purport of arguments by the defendant company's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 3's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the non-party 1's office and the company's office were established for the above prior approval of the defendant company.

In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 3 knew or could have known the fact that the above amount was necessary for the operation of the defendant company's Busan business office, and that such act was related to the duties of the director of the defendant company's Busan business office, which is engaged in activities within the limited scope such as the above recognition, and that the above amount was directly received from the defendant company 1, not in the name of the borrower, but in the name of the defendant company that is not in the ordinary procedure, and that the above amount cannot be required at the time of the defendant company's Busan business office, and that the above amount cannot be required for large amount of money such as the above loan at the time, as the plaintiff is the one of the defendant company's officers, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 3 knew or could have known the fact that it was necessary for the plaintiff to use the above amount as the funds for the operation of the defendant company's Busan business office, but it cannot be viewed as an act of borrowing the above amount as a duty of the director of the Busan business office or closely related to the above loan execution.

Sixth, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant company is seeking the return of the above money for the above money borrowed by the non-party 3, because the defendant company benefits the money equivalent to the above money borrowed without any legal ground. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above money borrowed from the plaintiff was used by the non-party 3 for voluntary consumption is not accepted. Thus, the defendant company's assertion that the above money was benefiting from the above money is not accepted.

Finally, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant company acquired the plaintiff's money by mistake in the employment and supervision of the non-party 3, which is the head of Busan District Office under his control, it constitutes a direct tort committed by the defendant company and thus, the defendant company is liable for damages pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Code. However, even if the defendant company neglected the employment and supervision of the non-party 3, it is considered that the act of acquiring the above money of the non-party 3 is an intentional crime regardless of his duties as the head of the defendant company's business office, and it is not determined as an illegal harmful act by the defendant company. Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed with no reason and with no reason. Thus, since the part against the defendant in the original judgment against the defendant is unfair, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation part shall be revoked and the remaining part in the original judgment shall be dismissed with the same conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be justified and without merit, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Ho-young (Presiding Judge)