Whether the head of the agricultural cooperative branch office has borrowed money from an individual for the purpose of raising other persons' project costs and whether the corporation is liable for tort liability.

The purpose of this article is only that the representative of a legal entity itself has committed a tort against others in connection with his/her duties. According to Articles 3, 2, and 111 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (Act No. 670 of July 29, 61), a credit business has been conducted during the business to achieve the objectives of the legal entity that is a military agricultural cooperative, but a loan is made for the purpose of the credit business, it is clearly required by law that it must be conducted only from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. The liability of a military agricultural cooperative's tort in relation to the borrowing of a loan is limited to the case where the representative of the legal entity has committed a tort against others in relation to the borrowing of a loan from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. Even if the president of an agricultural cooperative borrowed funds from an individual to raise funds for his/her own business, it cannot be viewed as a case where the principal has inflicted a tort on others within the scope of the purpose of the above association, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a tort of the above cooperative itself.

Article 35 (1) of the Civil Act, Article 2 and Article 111 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 63Na441 delivered on August 19, 1964

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The gist of the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant-appellant is that the original judgment is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the capacity of agricultural cooperatives and their legal capacity as illegal acts. In other words, a public-service corporation established under special Acts, such as agricultural cooperatives, becomes the subject of rights and obligations within the scope of purposes prescribed by the Act and the articles of association. According to Article 111 (1) 4 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, military agricultural cooperatives are allowed to borrow funds only from the National Federation. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the business ability of the defendant-appellant to acquire the funds of the

I think it is the purpose of Article 35 (1) of the Civil Code that only the case where the representative of the corporation itself has committed a tort against others in connection with his duties is limited to the case where the representative of the corporation itself has committed a tort against others. According to Articles 3, 2, and 111 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, although there is a credit business during the business to achieve the objectives of the corporation that is a military agricultural cooperative, it is clearly stipulated that only the case where a loan is made to carry out the credit business is required by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. Therefore, the military agricultural cooperative's responsibility for a tort against the loans is limited to the case where the representative of the association has committed a tort against others in relation to the borrowing of funds from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of Korea. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below of the court below, it is reasonable to believe that the plaintiff et al., who was the representative of the corporation's association, which was the head of Busan District District Court's branch, is the purpose of raising the funds for the business expenses of the defendant association.

Therefore, this loan cannot be viewed as a tort committed by the representative of the defendant union against the money borrowed from the National Federation as stipulated by the law, and therefore, it cannot be said that it constitutes a tort committed by the defendant union itself as a juristic person, separate from individual tort liability.

Since the appeal related to this issue is reasonable, the original judgment cannot be reversed.

다른 상고논지에 대하여 샅샅이 언급할필요없이 원심으로 하여금 다시 심리판단케 하기위하여 관여법관 전원의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)