Where the director of the aggregate management division in charge of the collection and sale of aggregate and the collection of aggregate obtains a large amount of money from the company under the name of the borrowed money, whether the above act falls within the scope of the business of the company in appearance

The act of borrowing money from a company for the purpose of manufacturing and selling housing materials, collecting aggregate, etc. is executed by the representative director upon the resolution of the board of directors, and there was no authority to borrow money from the head of the aggregate business office, as well as the head of the business office, and even before that, there was no right to borrow money from the company. In the above aggregate business office, if the head of the management office assisting the head of the aggregate business office in charge of collecting, selling, and collecting aggregate, prepares a promissory note or a loan certificate with the name and seal of the head of the aggregate business office and obtains money from the company under the pretext of borrowing by the company, the above act of borrowing money shall not be deemed an act that is not related to the original duties of the manager of the aggregate business

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Attorney Kim Jong-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na6103 delivered on July 24, 1990

The case shall be reversed in the original judgment and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the non-party 1, who was employed by the defendant company and was in charge of the business of selling aggregate and collecting aggregate from the end of the 1987 when he was in charge of the business of managing the aggregate, who borrowed the aggregate sales proceeds embezzled from the end of the 1987 to the plaintiff on July 15, 198 in order to cover the above amount as the financial standing of the defendant company, and issued a promissory note, loan certificate, loan certificate, and a loan certificate in the name of the defendant aggregate business manager in the name of the defendant aggregate business manager and the seal of the defendant company's representative director without permission, and received 86,00,000 won in aggregate from the trusted plaintiff, and in light of his position and duty contents, the above non-party's above act of taking money constitutes an act related to the execution of the defendant's business affairs.

However, according to the evidence adopted by the court below and evidence not rejected by the court below, the defendant company's loans are executed by the representative director of the defendant company after the resolution of the board of directors for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, collecting aggregate and selling housing materials. The defendant company's borrowing of funds is executed by the representative director of the defendant company. The defendant company's aggregate management director of the defendant company's aggregate business office did not have the authority to borrowed money for the defendant's company, and even before it borrowed money for the defendant's aggregate business office. The non-party 1 merely assisted the warden at the above aggregate business office and took charge of collecting, selling, and collecting aggregate. In this case, the non-party 1 borrowed large amount of money from the plaintiff's company for the defendant company. On the other hand, a promissory note (Evidence 1) or a loan certificate (Evidence 4) that the non-party 1 borrowed money from the plaintiff's company for the defendant company does not have the name and seal of the defendant company's company's office and the representative director's name and seal within the above aggregate's office. However, the defendant's name and seal of the defendant's company's company's company's company's name and business office.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code, which recognized the defendant's liability as an employer by regarding the act of borrowing the monetary amount of Nonparty 1 as an act concerning the execution of the defendant's business, which affected the conclusion of judgment

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, the part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)