In borrowing money from the Plaintiff, if not only the head of the farmland improvement association but also the head of the general affairs division and the head of the accounting division of the said association are stated in the column of the issuer of the promissory note with respect to borrowing money from the Plaintiff, it is difficult to conclude that the said money was borrowed from the said association without examining whether it was a joint issuer, and that the said promissory note was issued by the said association there was no gross negligence in believing that it was issued by the said association.

Public ginseng Service

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 70Na319 delivered on October 31, 1972

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant’s Attorney

In its reasoning explanation, the judgment below acknowledged that the plaintiff lent 1 million won to the defendant association on June 5, 1969 and 500,000 won to the defendant association on July 30, 1969 at the request of the non-party 1 of the general secretary general of the defendant association and the non-party 2 of the accounting director, and that the above lending act should be null and void since the defendant association did not have obtained the approval of the Do governor in borrowing the above money from the plaintiff, and the above non-party 1 was in charge of accounting such as receipt and disbursement of money, etc. by the director general of the defendant association at the time of borrowing the above money from the plaintiff, and the above non-party 2 supported the defendant association through the above person. After recognizing that the act of borrowing the above money from the defendant association was committed in relation to the execution of affairs such as receipt and disbursement of money, etc. by the above non-party 1 and 2 who are the employees of the defendant association, the defendant association was admitted as evidence.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, as the issuer of the promissory note, it is stated that not only the head of the Geum River Land Improvement Association, a telegraph of the defendant association, but also the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the issuer of the general manager of the general manager of the division of the division of the division of the division of the division of the division of the division of the division of the division of the division of the division of the division of the division. If the above loans were to be made to the association, and if the bill of the association was believed to have been issued by the association, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to be a joint issuer of the above association, it is difficult to conclude that the above loans were made in the above association, and it is difficult to conclude that there was no gross negligence in believing that the above promissory note was issued by the above association and that there was no other reason to believe that the above association did not have any other reasons to believe that it was not against the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Rin- Port (Presiding Justice)