A. Whether the act of borrowing funds by the director of the accounting division of a corporation constitutes a partial comprehensive representation as stipulated in Article 15 of the Commercial Act (negative)

(b) Loan made to the director of the accounting division of a stock company without following the procedures for confirmation under the internal regulations of the bank; and

(c) A case recognizing the company's employer's liability with respect to the lending of funds by the director of accounting division;

A. In general, the director of the accounting division of a stock company shall be deemed to have been delegated his authority to all the accounting affairs, such as revenues and expenditures of ordinary funds, bank transactions and preparation and management of accounting books, and in light of its position and position, influence on the company, in particular, the use of independent funds does not have been delegated by the company, unless there are special circumstances, in light of the circumstances such as the resolution of the board of directors for the borrowing of funds by the company. Therefore, the director of the accounting division cannot be deemed to have a partial comprehensive power of attorney under Article 1

B. In a case where the employee of the Plaintiff bank could have known whether the Plaintiff bank has the right of representation to the director of the accounting division of the Defendant company if he had followed the loan procedures prescribed by the Plaintiff bank, such as confirming whether the employee made a legitimate request for the rent of the Defendant company through the business process in charge of loan, even though the said bank employee believed that the Defendant company had the right of representation for the loan of funds, it shall be deemed that there was negligence by failing to pay the above attention, and therefore, the Plaintiff bank shall not be held liable for the expressive representation of the Defendant company.

C. The employees of the Plaintiff bank issued cashier's checks to the employees of the Plaintiff bank and issued them to the employees of the deceased bank in charge of the deceased bank's transaction with the embezzlement of the funds of the Defendant company. Even if the above chief of the accounting division opened and used the funds at other branches of the Plaintiff bank to manage his personal funds in the name of the Defendant company, and borrowed the funds by means such as forging the seal of the representative director and transferring the funds to the ordinary deposit account with no resources without resources, if the above bank employees of the Plaintiff bank provided the Defendant company's financial convenience, rather than for private transactions with the above chief of the accounting division, rather than for private transactions with the above chief of the accounting division, the above employees of the Plaintiff bank should be deemed to have been believed to have been the director of the financial division of the Defendant company to have been the right of representation for the borrowed funds and issued the instant cashier's checks, etc., and since the act of the person executing the affairs such as raising the funds of the Plaintiff bank and the securities discount, etc. by the Defendant company's liability to compensate for damages to the Plaintiff bank as the above employer.

(a) Article 15 of the Commercial Act; Article 126 of the Civil Act; Article 756 of the Civil Act;

Korea Commercial Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., Pacific Joint Office, Attorneys Kim In-con et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na3241 delivered on December 21, 1987

The appeal concerning the main claim among the judgment below is dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissed portion shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

The first ancillary claim portion of the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal (excluding the part of the claim for unjust enrichment) by the plaintiff's presiding and ordering machine, attorney Kim In-bok, Lee Jae-in, Justice Lee Jae-in, and Justice Lee Jae-sung, and the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

1. With respect to the primary claim:

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff 2's act of acquiring the above 15,00,000 cashier's checks on August 31, 1983 at the request of the non-party 2, who is the head of the defendant company's accounting office, and 30,000 won was transferred to the defendant's ordinary deposit office of the non-party 2. The non-party 2 was the commercial employee of the defendant company with the partial comprehensive power of attorney under Article 15 of the Commercial Act and the defendant's main claim for the loan of this case against the non-party 1. The non-party 2 was not allowed to deposit the funds to the defendant's ordinary deposit office of the non-party 1,000 won on behalf of the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not allowed to use the above 80,000 won on behalf of the non-party 1's general deposit office of the defendant bank's 9.

However, according to the above judgment of the court below, if the non-party 2 embezzled the funds of the defendant company and traded the bonds with the non-party 1's cashier's checks, and the non-party 1's ordinary deposit account of the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s finding that Nonparty 1’s issuing and delivering the instant cashier’s checks was a private transaction with Nonparty 2, regardless of whether the Plaintiff bank was the Plaintiff bank, cannot be said to have committed an unlawful act of entering the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Meanwhile, in light of whether the act of borrowing funds in this case constitutes a partial comprehensive agent under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, it is reasonable to view that the director of the accounting division of the corporation as delegated his authority with respect to all the accounting affairs such as income and expenditure of ordinary funds, banking transactions, preparation and management of accounting books, etc., and his position and position, influence on the company, in particular, the resolution of the board of directors is required for the borrowing of funds by the company, barring any special circumstances, it should be deemed that the independent use of funds is not entrusted by the defendant company, unless there is a special circumstance to deem that the non-party 2, the director of the accounting division of the defendant company, was delegated by the defendant company with the authority for the borrowing of funds. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the non-party 2 did not have an exclusive power of attorney under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, and the non-party 2 did not have the right of attorney for the defendant to express the funds in this case beyond the authority of the defendant company, and therefore, the plaintiff could not know whether the plaintiff was responsible for the non-party 1's loan.

Ultimately, although the judgment of the court below on the above main claim is erroneous as seen earlier, it is legitimate in its rejection, and there is no influence on the result of the judgment.

2. The primary claim shall be deemed to be the primary claim.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's preliminary claim that the non-party 2 belongs to the non-party 1 and caused him to issue the cashier's checks of this case, etc. as if the non-party 2 deposited the funds to issue the cashier's checks of this case before the transaction close time of the plaintiff bank, and thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the losses caused to the plaintiff as the non-party 2's employer, on the premise that it is a private transaction as stated in its judgment,

However, as seen earlier, Nonparty 1 believed that Nonparty 2 had the right to represent the Defendant’s lending of funds and issued the instant cashier’s checks, etc., and Nonparty 2 is a person executing the business of raising funds by means of bank transactions and discount of securities, etc. as the director of the accounting division of the Defendant Company. As such, the instant borrowing act was conducted with respect to the external execution of his/her business, so the Defendant Company is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by Nonparty 2 as the employer.

Therefore, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's first preliminary claim on the grounds as stated in its reasoning will ultimately mislead the legal principles on employer's liability and affected the result of the judgment by entering the rules of evidence, which constitutes a ground for reversal of Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. The ground for

3. Therefore, among the judgment below, the plaintiff's appeal concerning the main claim is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed portion are assessed against the losing party. The part concerning the first preliminary claim is with merit. Thus, the judgment on the second preliminary claim is reversed, and the part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)