Effect of Signature Representation in Acts of Promissory Notes

A signing agent on behalf of a bill is regarded as his own act.

§ 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act,

Boshee-young

House for immigration;

Busan District Court Decision 63Na260 delivered on November 6, 1963, Busan District Court Decision 63Na260 delivered on November 6, 1963

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

(1) Despite the fact that the previous precedents (cases of Japanese High Court and Joseon High Court at the time of the issuance of bills) with respect to the representation of the act of bills representing the defendant, the court below held that since the issuance of bills by the proxy of the defendant's name and seal was effective, the act of bills representing the defendant's husband cannot be recognized as the issuance of bills by the non-party's name and seal on behalf of the defendant's husband. (2) The court below's independent opinion contrary to the above precedents that the non-party's statement that the non-party's husband's name and seal could not be recognized as the issuance of bills as the defendant's name and the non-party's name and seal on the non-party's name and the non-party's statement that the non-party's husband's name and the non-party's name were also aware of the fact that the non-party's bill and the bill were issued under the defendant's name and the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's name and the non-party's statement that the non-party's name and the non-party's bill were non-party's statement.

The decision of the court of law at the time of the issuance of this case has recognized the effect of acting as a signature agent in the act of a bill, and although there was no change in its interpretation, the act of a bill by the original judgment has to comply with strict wise and thus the intent of denying the validity of acting as a signature agent in the act of a bill is wrong. Further, according to the evidence No. 6-1, it is obvious that the original judgment contains the same contents as the novel time of the issuance of this case, the non-party has issued the number and promissorysory note under the name of the defendant, as well as the defendant did not receive the power of representation in the issuance of this case from the defendant, and if the non-party did not have obtained the certificate from the defendant, it is hard to avoid any illegality which is confirmed by the evidence without permission, and if the court below stated it merely in the litigation materials and the purport of oral argument of the party concerned, the part of the court below's decision as to the issuance of a bill can not be evaluated as being unlawful, and therefore, it cannot be evaluated as a violation of evidence No. 16.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)