The case holding that an insurance company shall be held liable for an act of issuing promissory notes at its branch office as a nominal borrower.

Even though Gap did not indicate that his address is the Busan Branch Office of Education Insurance Co., Ltd. at the time of issuing a promissory note, it marks the name of the principal of the Busan Branch Office other than the principal of the corporation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Dong's name is the representative of the principal of the corporation's Busan Branch. And the company allowed Gap to use the trade name of Busan Branch to arrange the conclusion of the insurance contract between the insured and the company, and Gap did not show that Eul issued a promissory note to Eul for the purpose of securing the cost of office fixtures and that Eul was the owner of the said promissory note, and that Eul was the owner of the said promissory note and that there was a gross negligence on the part of the above company Gap's mistake as the principal of the act of issuing the said promissory note. Thus, the company shall be liable for the transaction with Gap who

Article 24 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff

Korea Education Insurance Co., Ltd.

Busan District Court Decision 68Na217 delivered on October 31, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The third ground of appeal by Defendant Attorney Park Sang-ok;

According to the facts established by the judgment of the court below, even if the non-party 1 did not indicate that the non-party 1 was the Busan Educational Insurance Co., Ltd. branch office in the address of the bill at the time of issuing this promissory note, and did not state that the non-party 1 was the director of the Busan Busan Branch office, under his name, the non-party 1 affixed the official seal as the representative of the above company's Busan Branch office. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant company allowed the non-party 1 to use the name of the defendant company's Busan Branch office to arrange the conclusion of the insurance contract between the policyholder and the defendant, and the non-party 1 issued the said promissory note to the non-party 2 for raising the office fixtures, and the plaintiff was the holder. According to the records, the non-party 1 did not show that the non-party 2 was grossly negligent in misunderstanding the subject of the issuance of the above promissory note as the defendant company. Thus, it cannot be argued that the defendant should be liable for the transaction with the non-party 1 who trusted who trusted its appearance.

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Gyeong-ri, Kim & Kim