In the case of a two or more agents, whether the expression representative is constituted.

Even if both agents have performed a juristic act beyond the scope of the power of representation granted by one of the parties, it cannot be deemed that the representation is constituted in such case.

Articles 124 and 126 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant 1 Company and 15 others

1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant 1 Stock Company, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 jointly and severally agreed to KRW 107,071,762 and KRW 88,783,247 among them, the amount calculated by the ratio of 25 percent per annum from June 22, 1983 to June 3, 1983; Defendant 3 from October 18, 1983 to Defendant 5; and Defendant 5 from November 19, 1983 to the date of full payment;

B. As to Defendant 4 and Defendant 5’s joint and several KRW 75,921,147 out of the gold 90,04,558, Defendant 4 and Defendant 5, the amount calculated by the rate of 25 percent per annum from June 22, 1983; and Defendant 5, from November 19, 1983 to the full payment date;

C. Defendant 2 shall pay 56,939,733 won and 38,750,028 won respectively at the rate of 25 percent per annum from June 3, 1983 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 6 is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the parts arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 are assessed against the said Defendants, and the parts arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 6 are assessed against the said Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant 1 Company, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 paid the amount to the Plaintiff as set forth in the Disposition No. 1, and Defendant 6 paid the amount to KRW 56,939,733 as well as KRW 38,750,028 as to KRW 56,939,73, jointly and severally with Defendant 2, with Defendant 2, at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day from the day on which the instant gushe was served to the day

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1 Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as Defendant 1 Company) and Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5

공문서이므로 각 진정성립이 추정되는 갑 제1호증의 8, 9, 갑 제2호증의 5, 6, 갑 제3호증의 15(각 인감증명), 갑 제4호증의 1, 2(각 판결), 증인 소외 1의 증언에 의하여 각 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제1호증의 1, 갑 제2호증의 1, 갑 제3호증의 1, 6, 9, 12(각 약속어음), 갑 제1호증의 2, 3(각 은행거래약정서), 갑 제1호증의 4(이사회기채결의서), 갑 제1호증의 5, 6(각 약정서), 갑 제1호증의 7(추가약정서), 갑 제1호증의 10, 갑 제2호증의 7, 갑 제3호증의 5, 8, 11, 14(각 수출어음대출), 갑 제1호증의 12, 갑 제 2호증의 9, 갑 제3호증의 18, 20, 21, 22(각 신용장), 갑 제2호증의 2, 갑 제3호증의 7, 10, 13(각 환어음), 갑 제2호증의 3(거래약정서), 갑 제2호증의 4(지급보증약정서), 갑 제5호증의 1, 2(금융단협정개정 및 동 내용), 같은 호증의 3(금융단협정집), 같은 호증의 4(개정경위), 같은 호증의 5(이율표), 피고 2 작성부분에 관하여 위 증인의 증언에 의하여 각 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제3호증의 2, 3(각 약정서), 같은 호증의 4(지급보증약정서)의 각 기재와 위 증인의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고들은 1980년경 원고은행 부평지점과 거래를 하였던 바 (1) 피고 1 회사는 1980. 8.경 원고은행 부평지점에 수출어음대출을 신청함에 있어서 위조한 마스터 신용장(신용장번호 1602-008-00128, 갑 제1호증의 11)을 제출하여 이를 진정한 것으로 믿은 원고은행 부평지점에서 같은달 18. 미화 162,327불의 내국신용장(신용장번호 3602-008-00146, 갑 제1호증의 12)을 발행받은 후 같은달 25. 금 92,000,000원을 변제기 같은해 9. 1. 이율과 연체이율은 원고은행이 정한 요율에 따라 각기 연 12퍼센트, 연 27 내지 29퍼센트로 정하여 대출받았고, 피고 2, 피고 3, 피고 4, 피고 5가 피고 1 회사의 위 대출금 채무에 관하여 연대보증하였던 사실, 피고 1 회사는 위 대출금채무중 같은해 9. 1.까지의 이자만 지급하고 1981. 1. 26.에 이르러 원금중 금 3,216,753원만을 지급함으로써 원금 잔액이 금 88,783,247원(92,000,000-3,216,753)으로 되었으며, 그 연체이자는 원금 92,000,000원에 대한 1980. 9. 2.부터 1980. 11. 7.까지 연 29퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 4,897,424원, 그 다음날부터 1981. 1. 26.까지 연 27퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 5,444,383원, 그 다음날부터 1981. 5. 27.까지 원금잔액 금 88,783,247원에 대한 연 27퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 7,946,708원등 합계 금 18,288,515원(4,897,424＋5,444,383＋7,946,708)이 되었던 사실, (2) 피고 4는 1980. 8.경 원고은행 부평지점에 수출어음대출을 신청함에 있어서 역시 위조한 마스터 신용장(신용장번호 1602-008-00096, 갑 제2호증의 8)을 제출하여 이를 진정한 것으로 믿은 원고은행 부평지점에서 같은달 12. 미화 163,027불 36선의 내국신용장(신용장번호 3602-008-00071, 갑 제2호증의 9)을 발행받은 후 같은해 9. 22. 금 75,921,147원을 변제기 같은날, 이율과 연체이율은 역시 원고은행이 정한 요율에 따라 각기 연 12퍼센트, 연 27 내지 29퍼센트로 정하여 대출받았고, 피고 5가 피고 4의 위 대출금 채무에 관하여 연대보증하였던 사실, 피고 4는 위 대출금 채무를 변제하지 아니함으로써 연체이자가 위 원금 75,921,147원에 대하여 1980. 9. 22.부터 같은해 11. 7.까지 연 29퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 2,835,082원, 그 다음날부터 1981. 5. 27.까지 연 27퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 11,288,329원등 합계 금 14,123,411원(2,835,082＋11,288,329)이 되었던 사실, (3) 피고 2는 1980. 3.경 원고은행 부평지점에 수출어음대출을 신청함에 있어서 역시 위조한 마스터 신용장(신용장번호 1901-002-03108, 갑 제3호증의 17)을 제출하여 이를 진정한 것으로 믿은 원고은행 부평지점에서 같은달 11. 미화 84,802불 8선의 내국신용장(신용장번호 3602-003-00064, 갑 제3호증의 l8)을 발행받은 후 같은해 4. 16. 금 45,000,000원을 변제기 같은해 7. 6. 이율과 연체이율은 역시 원고은행이 정한 요율에 따라 각기 연 12퍼센트, 연 27 내지 29퍼센트로 정하여 대출받았던 사실, 피고 2는 위 대출금 채무중 같은해 7. 6.까지의 이자만 지급하고 1981. 3. 4.에 이르러 원금중 금 6,249,972원만을 지급함으로써 원금잔액이 금 38,750,028원(45,000,000-6,249,972)으로 되었으며 그 연체이자는 원금 45,000,000원에 대한 1980. 7. 7.부터 같은해 11. 7.까지 연 29퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 4,433,424원, 그 다음날부터 1981. 2. 12.까지 연 27퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 3,228,904원, 그 다음날부터 1981. 5. 27.까지 원금잔액 금 38,750,028원에 대한 연 27퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 2,981,097원(원금 일부를 변제한 날이 1981. 3. 4.이므로 연체이자를 계산함에 있어서 같은날까지는 금 45,000,000원에 대하여 계산할 것이나, 원고의 구하는 바에 따랐다)등 합계 금 10,643,425원(4,433,424＋3,228,904＋2,981,097)이 되었던 사실, (4) 원고은행 1980. 3. 8. 피고 2와의 사이에 동 피고의 소외 2주식회사(이하 소외 2 회사라 약칭한다)에 대한 미화표시 채무에 관하여 한화지급보증약정을 함에 있어서 이율과 연체이율은 원고은행이 정하는 바에 따라 각기 연12퍼센트, 연 27 내지 29퍼센트로 정하였던 사실, 원고은행은 위 한화지급보증약정에 따라 1980. 6. 16. 동 피고의 소외 2 회사에 대한 미화 40,117불 50선 채무에 관하여 지급보증을 하고 같은해 8. 14. 소외 2 회사에게 위 미화에 대한 당시 환율에 의한 한화 금 24,543,886원을 대지급하였으나 1981. 2. 12. 동 피고로부터 위 원금 24,543,886원만을 변제받음으로써 그 연체이자가 위 원금에 대한 1980. 8. 14.부터 같은해 11. 7.까지 연 29퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 1,677,053원, 그 다음날부터 1981. 2. 12.까지 연 27퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 1,761,107원등 합계 금 3,438,160원(1,677,053＋1,761,107)이 되었던 사실, 그밖에 원고은행은 1980. 6. 16. 앞서본 바와 같은 방법으로 동 피고의 소외 2 회사에 대한 미화 56,164불 50선 채무에 관하여 지급보증을 하고 같은해 8. 14. 소외 2 회사에게 위 미화에 대한 당시 환율에 의한 한화 금 34,361,441원을 대지급하였으며, 동 피고로부터 위 원금중 1980. 8. 20. 금 26,590,773원, 1981. 2. 12. 금 7,770,668원을 각 지급받아 위 원금은 모두 변제 받았으나 그 연체이자로서 금 7,770,668원에 대한 1980. 8. 21.부터 같은해 11. 7.까지 연 29퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 557,572원 등 합계 금 1,045,314원(487,742＋557,572)을 지급받지 못하고 있는 사실, 또한 원고은행은 1980. 5. 23. 앞서본 바와 같은 방법으로 동 피고의 소외 2 회사에 대한 미화 32,694불 채무에 관하여 지급보증을 하고 같은해 7. 26. 소외 2 회사에게 위 미화에 대한 당시 환율에 의한 한화 금 19,737,367원을 대지급하였으며, 동 피고로부터 1981. 2. 12. 위 원금만을 변제받음으로써 그 연체이자가 위 원금에 대한 1980. 7. 26.부터 같은해 11. 7.까지 연29퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 1,646,583원, 그 다음날부터 1981. 2. 12.까지 연 27퍼센트의 비율에 의한 금 1,416,223원등 합계 금 3,062,806원(1,646,583＋1,416,223)이 되었던 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증없다.

Therefore, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay 107,071,762 won per annum ( principal of 88,783,247 + annual interest 18,288,515) and 88,783,247 won per annum from the date following the 22, 1983, Defendant 4, Defendant 2, from June 3, 1983 to June 3, 1983; Defendant 3, from October 18, 1983; Defendant 3, from November 18, 1983 to November 19, 1983; Defendant 5, from November 19, 1983; Defendant 2, Defendant 45, and 5, from June 14, 197, Defendant 194 and 5, respectively, to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum interest rate per annum under the Special Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 6

As seen earlier (1) Defendant 2 was granted a loan of KRW 45,00,00 from the Plaintiff bank, and the Plaintiff agreed to guarantee foreign currency payment for the Defendant’s non-party 2’s obligation to indicate the U.S. dollars against the said Defendant. Defendant 6 is jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant 2 to the Plaintiff bank either directly or through Nonparty 3, which is his agent, at the time of the above loan and payment guarantee, or at the time of the payment guarantee. Accordingly, Defendant 6 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 2 to pay damages for delay at the rate of KRW 56,939,750,028 and the principal of the loan amount of KRW 38,750,028 from the day following the completion of the service.

First of all, regarding the part of the evidence that Defendant 6 guaranteed the above debt against Defendant 2 in the name of Defendant 6 among the evidence Nos. 3-2, 3 (Each Agreement), and 4 (Performance Guarantee Agreement) of the same evidence submitted, which was submitted as to the joint and several debt of Defendant 6.

In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s testimony by Nonparty 3 and 4, Defendant 6, who had no dispute over the establishment of the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties, had the above issuance of the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal impression Nos. 1 and 6 to the Defendant’s 3 non-party 1 and 6’s non-party 3’s non-party 6’s non-party 3’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 3’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 3’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 3’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 3’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 9’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 6’s non-party 9’s non-party 6’s counter.

(2) Even though Defendant 6 did not grant to Nonparty 3 the joint and several liability under the bank transaction agreement and foreign currency payment guarantee agreement with Defendant 2’s vice branch of the Plaintiff bank, Defendant 3 issued Defendant 6’s seal and certificate of seal so that it can offer the said real estate as collateral and obtain a loan from the Plaintiff bank’s vice branch. This is the case where the said Nonparty granted the right of representation for the establishment of security for the said real estate. The Plaintiff bank is a relation where the said Nonparty had Defendant 6’s seal and certificate of seal impression, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the said Nonparty was granted the right of representation for the said joint and several liability agreement by Defendant 6. Accordingly, Defendant 6 asserts that Defendant 2 is liable for the debt to the Plaintiff bank in accordance with the legal principles of expression agency.

In full view of the above evidence, the facts that Defendant 6 granted the right of representation for the establishment of a collateral to the above real estate to Nonparty 3 and that Nonparty 3 guaranteed each obligation to the Plaintiff bank as the representative of the Plaintiff bank and Defendant 6 beyond the scope of the right of representation. Meanwhile, Nonparty 3, as the deputy head of the Plaintiff bank, may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff bank concluded a joint and several surety contract with Defendant 6 for the obligation of Defendant 2 who belongs to the business activities within its branch, as the representative, as the deputy head of the Plaintiff bank, in the legal status of his deputy head, and there is no proof otherwise, the above act of Nonparty 3 is deemed both acts as an agent, and even if both agents do a legal act beyond the scope of the right of representation granted by one party, it cannot be deemed as an agent if it is not reasonable to recognize that the above act of joint and several surety was an act of representation with the Nonparty 6's agent, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no legitimate ground to recognize that the agent's right of representation was in the relationship with the Plaintiff 3 as the above agent.

(3) In addition, the plaintiff bank asserted that it was not only the above real estate owned by the defendant 6, but also the non-party 7 corporation located in Nam-gu Incheon sublime (hereinafter the non-party 7 corporation) on August 11, 1980. The defendant 2 and the defendant 3 conspired with the non-party 3 about August 7, 1980 that the non-party 7 representative director of the non-party 7 did not intend to purchase the real estate owned by the non-party 7's 380,000,000 won and paid 66,00,000 won to the non-party 60,000 won to the non-party 6, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, and the non-party 4 and the non-party 6 corporation's non-party 6 corporation's joint venture 86,00,000 won to the above non-party 6 corporation's claim for damages 97,000 won.

As seen earlier, Defendant 6 cannot be recognized as a joint and several surety for Defendant 2’s obligation arising from a transaction with the Plaintiff bank. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(4) If so, the claim of this case against Defendant 6 of the Plaintiff bank is no longer acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s instant claims against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 are all reasonable, and all claims against Defendant 6 are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs, and Article 199 of the Provisional Execution Act to the declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Lee Lee-hoon (Presiding Judge)