Whether the nominal lender is liable for transactions outside the scope of business

The liability of the nominal lender prescribed in Article 24 of the Commercial Act shall be limited to transactions other than the scope of business, since a third party misleads the nominal lender as the business owner, and is responsible for the third party who trades with the nominal user within the scope of the business.

Article 24 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 7 others (Law No. 7447, Mar. 22, 1983)

Long-Term

Korea Transportation Corporation

The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,545,240 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from October 11, 1983 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

1. Judgment as to the main claim

The plaintiff is a primary cause for the plaintiff's primary claim. On September 9, 1983, the plaintiff argued that the defendant company has a duty to pay the above promissory note to the plaintiff as an endorser, who is the holder of the payment, because it is the plaintiff, the defendant company has a duty to pay the above promissory note to the plaintiff as an endorser, because it is argued that the plaintiff has a right to demand compensation on October 10 of the same year.

In order for a promissory note to be refused to pay and bring about a claim for reimbursement against the holder of the promissory note, a complete presentation must be made within the period of presentment for payment, and since the Plaintiff himself/herself is the person who presented the above payment with the place of payment and the non-ended bill whose place of payment was in blank at the time of presentment for payment, the above payment presentation shall not take effect as a lawful presentation for payment. Therefore, the right of recourse against the endorser shall not arise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion, which is premised on the plaintiff's right of recourse, is no longer necessary to examine the remaining points.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

The plaintiff is a preliminary claim, and on September 9, 1983, the plaintiff lent KRW 11,545,240 to the non-party, who is the director of the Southern Southern District Office of the defendant company, on October 10 of the same year with the maturity of repayment of KRW 11,545,240 to the non-party on October 10 of the same year. The non-party borrowed the above money in the capacity of the director of the Southern Southern District Office of the defendant company, as the non-party borrowed the money in the capacity of the director of the Southern District Office of the Southern District Office of the defendant company, the defendant company shall be directly liable for the monetary rent of the non-party, who is the agency of the defendant company, and even if not, the defendant company, who allowed the non-party to use the name of the defendant company to carry out the transportation business, one of which is the purpose of the business, is liable for the non-party

First of all, as to the assertion that the defendant company is directly responsible, the testimony of the witness meeting alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant company is an affiliated agency of the defendant company operated under the responsibility and accounting of the defendant company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. However, in full view of the non-party witness's testimony, the defendant company's remaining lower-class subsidiary of the defendant company can only recognize the fact that the defendant company is a special subsidiary of the defendant company's Busan branch, whose operation is one of the particulars of the complaint's calculation and responsibility, and even if the above lower-class subsidiary of the defendant company is an affiliated agency of the defendant company, the defendant company's liability is not directly attributable to the defendant company as long as it is not a representative agency. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

Next, with respect to the argument that held the liability as the name truster, the name truster's liability under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is against the third party who misleads the name truster as the business owner, and trades with the name truster within the scope of the business, so the name truster's liability cannot be held liable for any transaction other than the scope of business (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1852, Mar. 22, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1852, Mar. 2, 198). Since it is obvious that the business of the defendant company indicated by the name that the defendant company lent the defendant company to the non-party is a transportation business, even if the plaintiff lent the money to the non-party who operates the transportation business under the name of the second lower grade of the defendant company, it is difficult to view the above non-party's monetary borrowing act as belonging to the transportation business of the defendant company. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion that the non-party's monetary borrowing act is a transaction within the scope of the defendant

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's theory and preliminary claim of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed, and they are decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges' inducement (Presiding Judge) Egradical leap