The case holding that the forgery of endorsement of bill in the book of receipts and disbursements of the company is not related to the execution of business.

In a case where the authority of the receipt and disbursement division of the defendant company is issued in cash or completed on the date of receipt and there is no example of endorsement by the defendant company on another person’s bill, the act of forging endorsement in the name of the defendant company on the passenger car or the bill from another person’s office cannot be seen as an act of forging endorsement in the name of the defendant company in the name of the other person.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da1743 delivered on October 12, 1976 (No. 10849 delivered on November 26, 1974) 74Da993 delivered on November 26, 1974 (No. 223Da562 delivered on the Supreme Court Decision, No. 756(93)562 delivered on the summary of the decision, No. 756(93) of the Civil Act, No. 504 delivered on the court bulletin, No. 8212 delivered on July 22, 1969 (No. 692 delivered on the Supreme Court bulletin, No. 17Du357 delivered on the summary of the decision, and No. 756(64)57 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Busan District Court (74 Gohap1364)

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,298,00 and KRW 1,455,000 from September 26, 1971, and the amount of KRW 1,843,00 at an annual rate of five percent from September 28, 1971 to the date of full payment. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances. The above paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

If the testimony of the witness of the court below, part of the testimony of the witness of the court below, and part of the criminal record verified by the court below gathered the whole purport of the pleading, the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 who was engaged in the affairs of the receipt and disbursement accounting of the defendant company, conspired with the non-party 4, 1,500,000 won in blank (1), and the due date of the issuance date of the non-party 14, 1971. 26, 1971. 26, the non-party 5,90,00 won in 1,90,000 won in 1971. 2, 1971. 2, the issuance date of the non-party 1, 1971. 1, 2, 1971. 2, 1971. 2, the non-party 3's each endorsement of the name of the defendant company is forged, 3,000 won in blank bill, and 3.

However, according to the above facts, the plaintiff's act of purchasing money from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1's office's original owner's name is that the non-party 1's original owner's revenue and expenditure of the non-party 1's original owner's bill or its original owner's revenue and expenditure stated therein are not identical to the above non-party 1's original owner's revenue and expenditure, and the non-party 1's remaining revenue and expenditure of the non-party 1's original owner's revenue and expenditure of the non-party 3's original owner's revenue and expenditure of the non-party 1's original owner's revenue and expenditure of the non-party 1's original owner's original owner's revenue and expenditure of the non-party 1's original owner's revenue and expenditure of the non-party 1's original owner's original owner's revenue and expenditure of the non-party 1's original owner's revenue and expenditure of the non-party 6's original owner's own revenue and expenditure.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be deemed to be justifiable, it is reasonable to dismiss this case, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) and Lee Tae-tae Kim