(a) Whether the act of forging promissory notes by the employees of the company constitutes the act of performing his business affairs; and

B. Whether there is a need to believe the judgment of other cases in the evidence of evidence

1. At the time of forgery of the part of endorsement of this Promissory Notes “A” in the accounts of the Defendant Company and the receipt and disbursement division, the scope of its business is already delivered to the persons authorized to receive the completed bills, etc. or cash, and it is limited to the date of receipt, and in light of the circumstances leading up to forgery of the above part of endorsement (referring to the case of reference). The act of forgery of this Promissory Notes does not fall under the scope of its business, and it does not constitute an act with regard to the execution of its business objectively.

2. Even if a disposition document is a disposition document, it is not necessarily necessary to believe the contents of the judgment in the evidence of other cases, not the case in question.

Attorney Han-dae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Jyang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 75Na652 delivered on June 11, 1976

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the scope of business of the person who is the director in charge of the accounting of the defendant company and the non-party 1, who is the director in charge of the receipt and disbursement of the two copies of the Promissory Notes in this case, should be delivered to the person who is authorized to receive the completed negotiable Notes or cash and received them, and that there is no relation with the preparation, collection, or endorsement of securities such as the Promissory Notes, and that there is no relation with the above part of the endorsement of the Promissory Notes in this case, and that the above non-party 1's act of forgery of the Promissory Notes in this case does not fall under the scope of his business and does not fall under the scope of his business and cannot be seen as an act related to the execution of his business objectively. Thus, although the above act of forgery of the Promissory Notes in this case is written against the above case, the court below's rejection is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in this case's judgment and there is no reason for appeal against the plaintiff's appeal.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)

(Visits: Case of Dong Branch)

[Defendant-Appellant] Han Han-dae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Jyang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 75Na667 delivered on June 11, 1976

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the court below's reasoning, the court below's determination of the evidence prepared by the court below is examined in comparison with the records in the process of recognizing the fact that the part of endorsement of the Promissory Notes in the name of the defendant company was forged, and the duty of non-party 1, an employee of the defendant company, was not related to the issuance of a Promissory Notes or the affairs of endorsement, and was limited to the day on which the completed bill was issued and received, and the defendant company did not issue an endorsement to a bill issued by others for the payment of the price of goods or other debt, and the above non-party 1 was included in the non-party 1's office or the fact that the above non-party 1's act of forging this case's endorsement was included in the non-party 1's office or the vehicle with which he conspired to commit the act of forging this case's endorsement was included in the non-party 1's office or the fact of the written judgment

Therefore, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the above non-party 1's act of endorsement does not fall within the scope of his duties, and even if externally, it cannot be viewed as a case where it appears to fall within his official authority as an act similar to that within his official authority. Thus, the court below's determination and judgment are just and justifiable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Judge)