The term "non-party 2" means whether the entry "non-party 2" is valid as an endorsement representing the company.

The bill of this case is issued by the beneficiary to the partner who is the head of the Daegu Business Office of the defendant insurance company for the payment of insurance premium, and in the event that the above non-party 2 endorsed the bill to the non-party as "non-party 2", it is reasonable in light of the literalness of the bill to view that the defendant company's relationship with the plaintiff who is the assignee regardless of the will of the internal decision was endorsed as the head of the Daegu Business Office of the defendant company in the capacity of the principal of the Daegu Business Office of the defendant company. In addition, even in the method of acting as an agent for the bill, if there is an indication to the extent that it can be possible to recognize the purport that the act of the bill is performed on behalf of the principal in terms of the face of the bill, the expression "non-party 2" is legitimate as an agent relation indication of the defendant company.

Articles 12 and 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Articles 115 and 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da1436 delivered on December 26, 1973

[Judgment of the court below]

Maritime Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 81Na515 delivered on January 12, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, on October 27, 1980 and January 29, 1981, the first instance court issued two promissory notes with each face value of KRW 1,500,000, and each payment date as Daegu Bank's branch offices respectively, and on March 25, 1981, the above non-party 2 issued each of the above promissory notes to non-party 3 on January 30, 1981, stating that the above notes were endorsed to non-party 3 and the address and name column of endorsers "the head of the Daegu Bank of the East Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd.," and the above non-party 3 made endorsement to the plaintiff and presented each payment at the above payment date, but refused to pay them, and the payee of each of the above notes stated "non-party 2" on behalf of the above non-party 2 is not entitled to the above non-party 2's act of endorsement and name column as the above non-party 2's act of endorsement.

However, according to the records of this case, although the above non-party 2 stated only the above "non-party 2" in the payee's column, the above non-party 2 was the head of the defendant company at the time of endorsement of the above bill, and according to the testimony of the non-party 3 who endorsed the above bill to the plaintiff, the issuer of the above non-party 1 and the plaintiff, the above non-party 3 issued the above bill to the above non-party 2 who is the head of the defendant company in Daegu as insurance premium to be paid to the defendant company. The above non-party 3 found the plaintiff and requested the above non-party 2 to change the above bill in cash, and the above non-party 2 did not have the authority to ask the above non-party 2 to express the above bill's discount in cash, and it is reasonable to view that the above non-party 2's act of endorsement of the above non-party 3 as an agent of the above non-party 2's marine insurance company's opinion in light of its nature as an endorsement of the above non-party 2's opinion.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below seems to be considerably contrary to justice and equity without reversal, and thus, it is reversed and remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)