(a) The case holding that the representation cannot be made;

B. The defendant representative director of the company issued a check under the name of the company by gathering the name of the representative director after he resigns from his office and completing the registration of resignation, and the plaintiff presented it as the holder and refused payment, and thus, the damage caused by the refusal of payment cannot be deemed to have been caused due to the failure of the defendant company to take the procedure for changing the name of the representative director, barring special circumstances.

In the absence of special circumstances, barring special circumstances, the Defendant Company’s failure to take the procedure for changing the name of the representative director, thereby making it difficult to deem that the Defendant Company’s representative director was negligent in failing to take the procedure for changing the name of the representative director.

Article 129 of the Civil Act, Article 395 of the Civil Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Estude

Defendant Stock Company

Busan District Court Decision 71Na63 delivered on September 13, 1971

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

The judgment of the court below without any dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 which can be recognized by the testimony of the non-party 2 of the court of first instance, the non-party 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the first instance witness Gap evidence Nos. 1, the non-party 2 of the court of first instance, the testimony of the non-party 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the examination of the court below, and the non-party 1 initially resigned from his office on Dec. 2, 1969 and the registration of resignation was completed on the 5th of the same month. Then, the non-party 1 knew the representative director of the defendant company's name and issued 500,000 won at the face value of the defendant company's name, the date of issuance on May 9, 1970, and delivered them to the plaintiff through the non-party 2. The plaintiff's allegation that the above non-party 1 had no legitimate grounds for rejection of the plaintiff's resignation.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

In the reasoning of the original judgment, the plaintiff, when the non-party 1 resigned from the office of representative director of the defendant company, he took the procedure of changing the representative director in the name of the party unit of the bank, or failed to close it, and caused the plaintiff to exchange the check of this case by misleading the non-party 1 as the representative director of the defendant company, and thus the defendant is liable for damages equivalent to the check of this case due to the tort. Thus, the defendant's testimony of the first instance court witness Park Jin-hun and Lee Byung-Jil, the defendant company suspended the current account transaction with the first branch of the Industrial Bank of Korea which had been transacted before the resignation of the non-party 1, but the above bank did not withdraw the establishment of the contract of current account transaction with the above bank, the fact that the company did not take the procedure of changing the representative director's name, and the fact that the transaction with the new owner of the defendant company did not take the procedure of changing the representative director's name. However, the plaintiff's above reasons cannot be viewed as having been erroneous in the judgment of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Hong-nam Symick