Interpretation of "third party" under Article 395 of the Commercial Act

In the interpretation of Article 395 (Act of Apparent Representative Director and Liability of Company) of the Commercial Act, the "Third Party" does not require "no fault" in addition to "faith".

Article 395 of the Commercial Act

Monopoly Co., Ltd

Co., Ltd.

Daegu High Court Decision 71Na817 delivered on September 19, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s Defendant’s grounds of appeal;

According to the original judgment, the non-party, who is the executive director of the defendant company, is entitled to represent the defendant company by timely evidence. The non-party, using the above title as above, has no authority to represent the defendant company. The court below concluded a sales contract between the plaintiff and the non-party on December 29, 1970 and February 25, 1971, "40,000,00,000" between the plaintiff and the non-party for the purpose of engaging in the above personal business (the original sale business) of the defendant company. The court below rejected the non-party's right to represent the non-party's 15,310,000 won as well as the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's assertion and non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's evidence.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal are without merit and are not acceptable. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-op (Presiding Justice)