Cases where the head of a business office makes it erroneous to conclude that the goods supply contract with the head of the business office is performed as an individual qualification without representing the company.

The food supply contract that the head of the business office has entered into on behalf of the company unless there are other special circumstances.

Article 114 of the Civil Act

Samyang Electric Industries Corporation

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 67Na160 delivered on September 13, 1967

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

The judgment below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages, which concluded a contract with the non-party 2 as an individual qualification of the non-party 1 without representing the plaintiff company, on the non-party 1, to supply the third party's products, such as Samyang-dong, which is the plaintiff company's products, and when the non-party 2 is unable to pay the above goods or return the above goods, the court below determined that the non-party 2 was merely a guarantee contract with the non-party 1 as a guarantor.

However, according to the testimony of the witness Nonparty 1 as cited by the court below, the head of the place of business is subject to the order of the plaintiff company and the non-party 1 is engaged in credit transaction on behalf of the plaintiff company on behalf of the third party. According to the evidence No. 1 (supply Contract), the non-party 1 supplied goods to the non-party 2 and the defendant guaranteed the non-party 2's payment or return of goods. Thus, unless there are other special circumstances, it is reasonable to view the non-party 1 as the representative of the plaintiff company and the non-party 2 as the guarantee of the non-party 2's above obligation. However, the court below's conclusion that the non-party 1 entered into the above contract with the non-party 2's personal qualification without any deliberation on the existence of special circumstances is erroneous in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the appeal on this point is reversed and remanded to Gwangju High Court's judgment.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman