(a) Method of displaying the representative or representative in the act of bills by the company;

(b) Whether the head office and a branch office can be seen as an expression manager, whether the director of the place of business dealing with limited and auxiliary administrative affairs

A. In the act of a commercial company's bill, it is sufficient to say that the method of indicating the representative or representative is not an act of a bill on behalf of the representative or representative, but an act of a bill on behalf of the principal.

B. Since a place of business which simply handles ancillary affairs under the direction and supervision of the main office and branch cannot be seen as a place of business under the Commercial Act, the complaint of the place of business cannot be seen as an expression manager under Article 14(1) of the Commercial Act.

Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 115 of the Civil Act, Articles 48 and 14 of the Commercial Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 78Na28 delivered on July 14, 1978

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The name of the person to whom the payment is to be made or the person to whom the payment is to be made (the minority) is to be made does not necessarily require accuracy, and it is sufficient that the name of the person to whom the payment is to be made or the person to whom the payment is to be made is to be made, and when a company or other legal entity is to be made known as an addressee, the company is not to indicate its representative or representative, and even if any branch or business office or agent of a certain company is indicated, the company is to be the addressee. Therefore, the court below's decision that the term "the Busan business office of the Korea Sea & Fire Insurance Corporation" is valid as a promissory note with the addressee. Since there are no special provisions on the method of indicating the representative or agent's act of a commercial company's act of a bill, it is legitimate as a representative or agent's expression that it is to be made for the principal, and as such, the continuous endorsement of the court below's decision cannot be accepted as a defect of the previous commercial company's business office without any continuous endorsement (see, e.g. 1236, 1636, etc.).

2. An employee who has the business title of the head office or branch office, or other similar titles, shall be deemed to have the same authority as the manager of the head office or branch office, and shall be deemed to have the same authority as that of the head office or branch office. In order to apply this Article to an expression manager, the place of work of the employee concerned shall be required to have the substance of the head office or branch office, which is the business office under the Commercial Act, and to operate independently to a certain extent.

However, according to the records, it is clear that the defendant company is an insurer subject to regulation by the Insurance Business Act and its basic work is to conclude insurance contracts, receive premiums, and pay insurance money. The contents of the defendant company's Busan Busan's business are insurance solicitation, collection and remittance of insurance premiums, preservation and management of insurance contracts, management of insurance solicitors' personnel management and education management of educational agencies, and other matters delegated by the main office and branch under the direction and supervision of the main office or branch office. Accordingly, the above Busan's business office is not capable of performing the basic affairs of the defendant company independently. However, it cannot be viewed as a business place corresponding to the main office and branch, which is a business place under the Commercial Act, and it cannot be viewed as an expression manager under the above law.

Nevertheless, without any deliberation by the court below, the fact that the above non-party 1 was at the place of business of the defendant company at the time of endorsement of the bill of this case is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, the above non-party 1 was entitled to represent the defendant company as an expression manager under Article 14 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the court below rejected the defendant's defense by misunderstanding the legal principles of the expression manager, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. On March 4, 1976, Nonparty 2 issued to Nonparty 1 a promissory note with the payment date of 3,000,000 won, payment date of 1976.4.4.4.4., payment date of 1976.4., Busan City, the Korean Commercial Bank North Korea's branch, and the recipient's business office of Busan Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. which committed the Defendant's disturbance, and the head of the Busan Busan Busan business office of the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the obligation of protest preparation, and the Plaintiff made a series of endorsement and transfer to Nonparty 3 on the same day. The above Nonparty 3, as the holder of the above promissory note, presented the above bill to Nonparty 3 on April 6, 1976, was refused to pay it without transaction, and the Plaintiff paid interest under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act to Nonparty 3 on April 4, 1977 and confirmed that the Defendant's claim to recover the above bill against the Defendant's endorser under Article 70 (2) of the Bill Act.

According to the records, the defendant asserted that "the payment date is 196.4.4. and 4.6.6. of the same year, and the statute of limitations has expired pursuant to Article 70 (2) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act." Although the grounds for the bill of limitations are not clear, the date of the bill payment is 196.4.4.6. of the same year and the date of the bill payment presentation is 1976.6.4.6. of the same year and the payment date is 1977.4. of the bill to the holder, the bill of limitations is already 1 year after the expiration of one year. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the bill of limitations cannot be filed again with the defendant who is the endorser even if the plaintiff paid the bill to the holder of the bill, and the court below rejected the defense of the parties.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices to reverse and remand the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the arguments cited in this point.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)