(a) In cases where an endorsement of a bill is forged, whether the lawful presentation of payment by the holder constitutes an element to hold the employer liable for the forgery of the endorsement;

(b) Whether the amount of damage sustained by acquiring a forged promissory note is equivalent to the face value of such note;

(c) The case holding that the judgment of the court below on the severity of the negligence confirmed by the mutual savings and finance company specialized in the bill discount, etc. that the endorsement under the name of the ship-free partnership company in the name of the ship-free limited partnership company and the mistake that the endorsement was made in the name of the ship-free partnership company in the name of the ship-free limited partnership company, and that the accounting personnel did not properly supervise its employees,

D. Whether the causal relationship between the damage of the mutual savings and the illegal act of the employees of the ship-free partnership company and the ship-free partnership company can be denied on the ground that the mutual savings and finance company was negligent by mistake in endorsement as stated in paragraph (c) and the employees of the ship-free partnership company with the erroneous knowledge of the error

A. In cases where a bill is forged, unless there is a special circumstance that the provision on representation in the bill under the Civil Act can be applied mutatis mutandis, in principle, an employee is liable for damages under Article 756 of the Civil Act if the employee took part in a tort caused by forgery of the bill, and the employer is liable for damages under Article 756 of the Civil Act if it was caused by illegal act in connection with the employer’s performance of duties. In such a case, the employer’s responsibility is not the responsibility on the bill but the tort under the Civil Act. Therefore, in discussing the employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, the existence of rights under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, such as whether the holder of the bill has the right of recourse under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, should not be considered as necessary to compensate for damages caused by forgery of the bill. Thus, even if the holder of the bill fails to make a payment presentation within the lawful period of time, it cannot be held liable for tort against the user already occurred.

B. Damage incurred by acquiring forged promissory notes is equivalent to the discount amount actually contributed to acquire them, except in extenuating circumstances, and the amount equivalent to the face value of the promissory note recognized as being paid by the holder of the promissory note cannot be deemed as equivalent if the promissory note was genuine.

C. Even if the mutual savings and finance company was negligent in misunderstanding the endorsement in the name of the ship-free partnership company in the name of the ship-free partnership company, it is difficult to find out such fact unless it is carefully viewed as the "dissipant" among the names of the ship-free partnership company, and the address or representative of the endorser mentioned in the endorsement is not clear and consistent with the actual address or representative of the ship-free partnership company, and the mutual savings and finance company took measures to confirm the ship-free partnership company in discounting bills, even if considering the fact that the mutual savings and finance company is a financial institution specialized in the bill discount, it is difficult to say that the above negligence of the mutual savings and finance company is difficult, whereas if the company's accounting and employees were to view the negligence of the ship-free partnership company as the result of endorsement without confirming whether it was actually a company's endorsement in the name of the ship-free limited partnership company, and it cannot be said that there is a gross negligence near the ship-free partnership company's fault ratio and negligence ratio, and it cannot be said that it did not go against the above set-off ratio of negligence.

D. In the case of discounting a promissory note, the mutual savings and finance company was negligent in misunderstanding the endorsement made in the name of the ship-free partnership company in the name of the ship-free partnership company, and the employees of the ship-free partnership company also agreed that the endorsement was true with the knowledge that the endorsement was made in the name of the ship-free limited partnership company in the name of the ship-free partnership company with respect to the promissory note against the inquiry of the mutual savings and finance company, as long as the mutual savings and finance company acquired the promissory note with the belief of a different answer, the damages of the mutual savings and finance company and the illegal act committed by the employees

A. Article 756 of the Civil Act, Article 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act (Articles 44 and 53). (D) Article 763 of the Civil Act (Article 393). Article 763 of the Civil Act (Article 396)

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 93Da6164,6171 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2597). Supreme Court Decision 74Da808 delivered on December 24, 1974 (Gong1975, 8274) (defluence), 75Da1680 delivered on February 22, 197 (defluence), 85Da1600 delivered on March 11, 1986 (defluence 1986, 628), 84Da2438 delivered on March 25, 1986 (defluence 1986, 690) (defluence 2310 delivered on September 9, 1986) (defluence 193Da136949 delivered on March 139, 197).

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on May 1, 200

Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ga46 delivered on August 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na23171 delivered on March 26, 1993

1. Of the Plaintiff’s ancillary claim, the part concerning the promissory note indicated in the attached sheet Nos. 4 through 8 as to the Plaintiff’s ancillary claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court

2. All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

A. On the third ground for appeal

(1) Of the Promissory Notes in this case, the court below held that since the Plaintiff’s damages compensation claim was dismissed on the ground that the endorsement under the name of the Shipbuilding Partnership Co., Ltd. was forged due to the Defendant’s tort committed by the Defendant’s employee, the damages incurred by the holder of a promissory note whose endorsement was forged is believed to be genuine and contribute money to acquire the Promissory Notes shall be the damages incurred by the acquisition of a promissory note that cannot be claimed by the endorser for the performance of the obligation of recourse against the endorser, the holder of the Promissory Notes can claim damages only to the extent that he can be held liable for the damage by presenting it within the lawful period of presentment and taking the procedure for the preservation of the right of recourse. Since each of the Promissory Notes in this case was presented within the lawful period of presentment, it was not possible to claim damages equivalent to the discount money.

(2) In case where a bill is forged, the person who forged the bill shall not, in principle, be held liable for the bill, unless there are special circumstances such as that the provision on an expression agency under the Civil Act may

However, in case where an employee participated in a tort caused by forgery of a bill, if it was caused by an illegal act related to the employer's performance of duties, the employer is liable for damages under Article 756 of the Civil Code.

In this case, the employer's liability is not the responsibility in the bill, but the liability in the civil law, so the requirements and scope of the liability are not the same as that in the bill.

Therefore, in discussing the employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary to judge whether the holder of the bill has the right of recourse under the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act or not.

In addition, since the holder of a bill is deemed to have suffered losses equivalent to the discount amount paid, not the face value of the bill, as soon as he/she believe that a counterfeited endorsement is true and pays the discounted amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da43848, Jun. 23, 1992; 91Da4388, Jun. 23, 1992) and then whether the holder of the bill has actually refused payment after the presentment of payment is liable for damages caused by forgery of endorsement cannot be deemed as necessary requirements. Even if the holder of the bill failed to follow the procedure for preserving the right of recourse because he/she did not present payment within the lawful time limit for presentment, it cannot be deemed as a cause impeding the holder of the bill to compensate for tort liability against the user of the forged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Da1680, Feb. 22, 197; 93Da6164, Aug. 24, 1993).

(3) Even if it is assumed that an endorsement was not forged, if the holder of a bill does not have the responsibility for recourse against the endorser when the bill was presented for the presentment period, but even if the bill was paid for the presentment period by the holder of a forged bill, then he can be compensated for damages, the holder of a forged bill shall be protected more than the holder of the authentic bill and shall lose balance. However, in the case of a forged bill, the holder of the bill shall not exercise the right of recourse against the drawee or the user of the person who committed a tort even if the bill was lawfully presented for payment, the bill holder shall not exercise the right of recourse against the drawee or the person who committed a tort. Therefore, in relation to the bill, it does not have any particular meaning as to whether the bill was presented for the presentment period, but rather, it would be unreasonable that the holder of the bill would not be held liable for the employer due to the lapse of the payment presentment period. Therefore, there is no ground to make such counterarguments as above.

In addition, even if it is proved that the endorsement was forged before maturity of the bill, the holder as the holder of the bill can make a lawful payment presentation by leaving the maturity even in relation to the user of the illegal person who does not bear the responsibility under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, but there is no reason to hold the user liable due to forgery.

(4) On December 24, 1974, the Court Decisions 74Da808 delivered on December 24, 1974 and 89Meu17331 delivered on April 10, 190, which held that the person who acquired a forged bill fails to present the payment within the lawful period of payment, and that the holder of the bill shall not claim damages for the counterfeited person who is the user, if the holder fails to present the payment within the period of payment for the bill, even though the bill was forged to guarantee the payment only by the date of payment for the bill, and the bill guarantee that the payment shall be guaranteed by the date of payment for the bill, and that the bill holder shall not claim damages for the counterfeited person who is the user during the period of payment for the bill.

(5) Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff cannot be held liable for damages against the defendant solely on the ground that the plaintiff did not make a lawful presentation of payment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to liability for damages caused by forgery of a bill, and there is a ground to point this out

B. On the first ground for appeal

Damage incurred by acquiring forged promissory notes is the amount equivalent to the discount amount actually contributed to acquire them, except in extenuating circumstances. If the above promissory notes were true, such as the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be viewed as the amount equivalent to the face value of the promissory notes recognized by the Plaintiff as being paid. As seen earlier, the lower court’s judgment to the same effect as the instant promissory notes Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amount of damage caused by tort, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for argument.

C. On the second ground for appeal

(1) The lower court’s determination as to the Promissory Notes Nos. 4, 7, and 8 is as follows.

In other words, Nonparty 1, the representative director of the non-party corporation (hereinafter only referred to as the non-party corporation), among the "non-party company's name," the name of the defendant corporation, was changed only to the name of the non-party company, and was removed from the name of the representative member of the defendant company, and using the name of the non-party company's representative member, the non-party 1 forged the endorsement made in the name of the above "the representative member of the non-party company of the non-party company" on each of the above bills, and was discounted by the plaintiff. The non-party 1, the representative director of the non-party company of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), confirmed the defendant's whether the non-party company's accounting and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the executive director of the defendant's general affairs, issued an order to the non-party company to ask the defendant company to endorse if there is any error on the bill.

(2) The court below held that, based on the above fact-finding, the defendant company's act of reply was an unlawful act of deceiving the other party by notifying false facts and deceiving the other party, although the employees in charge of the defendant company did not discover the endorsement under the name of the defendant company, which was forged similar to that of the defendant company under the name of the defendant company, in accordance with the instruction of Kim Dong-dong, and without finding the endorsement on each of the above bills, although the above bills were not stated in the ledger for the establishment of the defendant company, the act of replying that the endorsement under the name of the defendant company was actually made under each of the above bills constitutes an unlawful act of deceiving the other party. This was one of the causes for preventing the plaintiff company's officials in charge of the above mistake from discovering the endorsement under the name of the defendant company under the above each of the above bills, and the above act was shown within the scope of their duties in light of the contents of duties of the defendant company and the officers in charge of the defendant company's accounting, the defendant company was liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff as the above 7% of the defendant company's fault and its own negligence.

(3) However, even if the Plaintiff was negligent in misunderstanding the endorsement in the name of the Defendant Company as an endorsement in the name of the Defendant Company, it is difficult to find out such fact unless the said endorsement is carefully taken into account due to the fact that the name of the Defendant Company, among the names of the endorsers, was almost similar to that of the Defendant Company, and the address or the name of its representative as indicated in the above endorsement, coincide with that of the Defendant Company’s actual address or representative, and the Plaintiff took measures to confirm the Defendant Company in discounting the said bills, even if considering the fact that the Plaintiff was a financial institution specialized in discount of the bill, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s negligence is significant (a) even if considering that the Plaintiff was a financial institution specialized in discount of the bill, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s negligence was gross (a) other financial institutions other than the Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff, are also aware of the fact that the Defendant believed that the bill, which was counterfeited by Nonparty 1, was a bill of exchange

On the other hand, if we look at the negligence of the defendant as shown in the instant case, it shall be deemed that the defendant's employee did not confirm whether the defendant actually endorsed on the bill, and the defendant's reply to the endorsement is a significant fault close to the defendant's intention or intentional, and the defendant's negligence which did not properly supervise the above employees cannot be deemed as a minor negligence. However, even compared with the defendant's negligence, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's negligence ratio exceeds 70% of the defendant's two times of the amount of negligence ratio is nothing more than that of the defendant's negligence, and it shall not be deemed that the judgment of the amount of offsetting the negligence would result in a significant violation of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da21521 delivered on May 27, 1994).

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

A. On the first ground for appeal

In acquiring Promissory Notes Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of this case, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the court below should consider the defendant's fault that did not investigate the above facts in determining the authenticity of endorsement and acquisition of Promissory Notes in the name of the defendant, and that the court below's determination is just in light of the records, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of comparative negligence as to comparative negligence, as otherwise alleged in the theory of lawsuit, although the plaintiff did not inquire or inquire of the issuer of the Promissory Notes, the status of the deposit, credit rating, and whether the Promissory Notes were actually issued or not, or did not investigate the bank transaction records and credit conditions of the non-party company or the payer of discount, the endorsement transferor.

B. On the second ground for appeal

According to the above, when the plaintiff discounts promissory notes, it was negligent for the plaintiff to misunderstand the endorsement under the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant, and the defendant's employees also responded to the plaintiff's inquiry that the endorsement was made in the name of the defendant company with the knowledge that the endorsement was made in the name of the defendant company with respect to each of the above bills. However, as long as the plaintiff believed the plaintiff's answer different from the above facts and acquired the bill of this case, the plaintiff's losses and the defendant's illegal act cannot be denied (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da21521 delivered on May 27, 1994). The court below's judgment to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Of the part against the plaintiff as to the conjunctive claim of the judgment below, the part concerning the above Nos. 4 through 8 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the appeal by the defendant are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Chief Justice Yoon-young (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)