[1] A person who can assert the application of the provision on representation under the Civil Act as to a guarantee of a bill (=the issuer of a bill)

[2] The meaning of "as to the execution of affairs" under Article 756 of the Civil Code and the criteria for its determination

[3] In a case where a victim's bad faith or gross negligence is recognized as an illegal act of an employee, whether an employer's liability is recognized (negative), and the meaning of "the victim's gross negligence, which is the reason for exemption from

[4] Whether fact-finding or determination of the ratio of negligence by the parties involved in a tort constitutes the exclusive authority of fact-finding courts (affirmative with qualification)

[1] Article 126 of the Civil Code on Apparent Representation refers only to the person who has become the direct counterpart to the act of Apparent Representation, and the guarantee of a promissory note is a sole act of a guarantor to secure the obligations of the amount of the bill for the drawer. Since the guarantee of a promissory note is a sole act of the guarantor to secure the obligations of the amount of the bill for the drawer, the actual counterpart is not a third acquisitor of the bill but the issuer, so in a case where the guarantee of a promissory note is forged, the part of the guarantee of the promissory note is counterfeited, the third acquisitor who has received the said promissory note is not a third party who can assert that the said guarantee act is an act

[2] The phrase "in relation to the execution of an employee's business, which is the requirement for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code," means that if an employee's unlawful act is objectively deemed to be an employee's business activity, an act of performing an employee's business, or an act of performing an employee's business, without considering the employee's subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the employee's performance of an employee's business should be determined by considering the degree of the employee's inherent duty and tort, the degree of the employee's occurrence of risks to the employee

[3] Even in cases where an employee's illegal act appears to fall within the scope of the execution of his/her duties in appearance, if the victim himself/herself knew, or was unable to know, due to gross negligence, that the employee's act does not constitute an act of performing his/her duties in lieu of the employer or employer, he/she shall not be held liable for the employer. In such cases, the gross negligence refers to the situation where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction has breached the duty of care required of the ordinary public by believing that the act of the employee would not have been lawfully performed within his/her authority even though he/she knew, he/she did not have been committed within the scope of his/her authority.

[4] The fact-finding and the ratio of the fault of the parties involved in tort are the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

[1] Article 126 of the Civil Code, Article 31 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act / [2] Article 756 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 756 of the Civil Code / [4] Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Code, Article 402 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of January 26, 2002) (see current Article 432 of the Civil Code)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Da2310 delivered on September 9, 198 (Gong1986, 197) 90Da3979 delivered on June 11, 1991, Supreme Court Decision 91Da394 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994, 1979, 1979) 97Da297989 delivered on November 28, 197, 209, Supreme Court Decision 96Da21799 delivered on September 29, 209 (Gong1979, 398, 3979, 397, 1969, 197) 9Da39799 delivered on September 29, 209 (Gong199, 3669, 199)

Han Bank Co., Ltd., a lawsuit taking over the lawsuit of Boym Bank (Law Firm Han Law Firm, Attorneys Sung-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The bankruptcy trustee of a new comprehensive financial corporation, who is the taking over of a lawsuit by a new comprehensive financial corporation (Law Firm Global Law Firm, Attorney Yoon In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 2000Na30621 delivered on July 19, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal as to Nonparty 1’s representation or expression representation

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the first instance court's joint defendant construction corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Dong Construction") was 1,000,000 won as 9,000 won for the above 90 new promissory notes were 1,000 won as 9,000 won as 9,000 won for the above 97 new promissory notes were 1,000 won as 9,000 won for the first 9,000 won as 9,000 won as 9,000 won as 9,000 won as 9,000 won as 5,00 won as 9,00 won as 9,00 won as 6,00 won as 9,00 won as 6,00 won as 9,00 won as 9,000 won as 6,00 won as 9,000 won as 7,00 won as 9,000 won as 6,00 won as 6,00 won.

B. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that Nonparty 1 had the right to represent the act of guaranteeing the Promissory Notes of this case on the ground that Nonparty 1’s act of guaranteeing the payment of the Promissory Notes of this case was insufficient to recognize that Nonparty 1 had the right to represent the act of guaranteeing the Promissory Notes of this case, and that Nonparty 1 was not selected as a qualified credit trader from the new form of loan, and thus, the payment guarantee of the Promissory Notes of this case issued of this case cannot be allowed without authority, on the ground that Nonparty 1’s act of guaranteeing the payment of the Promissory Notes of this case was forged by the new form of a new form of money without authority, on the ground that Nonparty 1’s act of guaranteeing the payment of the Promissory Notes of this case, as an agent in charge of the payment of the Promissory Notes of this case, with the new form of a new form of money in the name of the new form of a promissory Notes of this case, was forged by the part of the guarantee of the new form of a promissory Notes of this case’s act.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence and misapprehension of legal principles as to the existence of power of representation

C. On the other hand, Article 126 of the Civil Code provides that "the third party" refers to only the person who becomes the other party to the act of expression as an agent of the Plaintiff, and since the guarantee of a promissory note is a sole act of the guarantor to secure the obligations of the bill for the issuer, the actual other party is not a third party purchaser but the issuer, so if the guarantee part of a promissory note is forged, the third party purchaser who received the said guarantee cannot be viewed as a third party who can assert that the above guarantee act has its effect as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Code. (See Supreme Court Decisions 84Da2310, Sept. 9, 1986; 91Da394, Jun. 11, 191; 93Da21521, May 27, 1994; 97Da19719, Jun. 19, 197.

In light of the records of the judgment below and the above legal principles, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court below that denied the establishment of an expression agency in the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of legal principles

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on employer liability

The phrase "business operation", which is an element for employer's liability as stipulated in Article 756 of the Civil Act, is deemed to have been conducted by an employee without considering the offender's subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the business operation of the employee should be determined by considering the degree of the employee's original duty and the degree of the damage caused and the degree of the liability for preventing the damage to the employee. It means 94Da38168, Oct. 13, 1995, 95; 95Da46890, Jan. 26, 1996; 97Da16572, Oct. 10, 197; 1997; 90Da979999, Oct. 10, 1997; 209Da979799, Oct. 10, 198; 200Da97979, Jun. 16, 1998.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the non-party 1's act of purchasing a new promissory note under the name of the non-party 1, which was merely an employee of the non-party 3's act of purchasing a new promissory note under the name of the non-party 1, because the non-party 1's act of purchasing a new promissory note under the name of the non-party 1, which was merely an employee of the non-party 3, could not be seen as an act of purchasing a new promissory note under the name of the non-party 1, because the non-party 1's act of purchasing a new promissory note under the name of the non-party 1, which was merely an employee of the non-party 3, could not be seen as an act of purchasing a new promissory note under the name of the non-party 1, who was merely an employee of the non-party 1, who was aware of the fact that the non-party 1's act of purchasing a new promissory note under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1.

Upon examining the judgment below in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the

3. As to the plaintiff's grounds of appeal as to the existence and scope of negligence on the part of the plaintiff and the ratio of comparative negligence

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, in collusion with the non-party 1, the non-party 3 knew that the portion of the bill guarantee in the name of a new kind of money was forged or that at least the same kind of money was forged or that the part of the bill guarantee in the name of a new kind of money stated in the front of the Promissory Notes issued in this case was forged or that the new construction was not designated as an eligible enterprise, and therefore, Boli Bank neglected the supervision over the non-party 3, and if the non-party 3 knew that the new bill guarantee in the name of a new kind of money stated in the front of the Promissory Notes issued in this case, it could be easily discovered that the new bill guarantee in this case was true, or that there was no error in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the non-party 3's new bill guarantee in light of the facts alleged in the ground of appeal, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the non-party 4's new bond guarantee in this case.

On the other hand, finding of facts and determining the ratio of negligence of the parties competing to tort are the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da6240, Sept. 4, 1998; 96Da11440, Sept. 4, 1998; 97Da24382, Feb. 27, 1998; 97Da47989, Oct. 27, 1998; 50% of the plaintiff's negligence is not recognized to be remarkably excessive or excessively excessive in light of the principle of equity. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of legal principles as to offsetting negligence, as alleged by the plaintiff and the defendant.

4. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the deduction of KRW 1 billion from the same construction

As between May 31, 200 and September 30, 200, the Plaintiff received KRW 1 billion as the repayment of the Promissory Notes from Dong Construction as the repayment of the instant promissory Notes, the Plaintiff’s assertion in the grounds of appeal that the amount of KRW 1 billion should be deducted from the damage claim of this case, which is the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy claim against the Defendant, should be deducted from the damage claim of this case against the Defendant, is only the first time, and therefore, it cannot

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)