Effect of a check issued in the name of the principal

A school operated by a foundation as its business is merely a facility for education, and the school capital cannot be the subject of rights and obligations. Thus, it cannot be deemed a representative of a foundation unless there is a demand or special reason to indicate that it is the principal of a school, and it cannot be deemed that it is issued by the school itself. Accordingly, it is ultimately issued by the principal of a school.

Articles 29 and 43 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 56 Civil Code35 delivered on March 30, 1956

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal is that: (a) the Plaintiff became the holder with knowledge that the cause of the Defendant’s obligation was not the Defendant’s personal obligation, but the Defendant’s obligation to pay the check was recognized at the fact-finding court; (b) however, (c) the principal of the (school name omitted) the principal of the (school name) high school, which is located in Busan City (name omitted); and (d) the principal of the (school name omitted) the principal of the (school name omitted) the principal of the (school name) the principal of the (school name omitted) the principal of the (school name) the principal of the (school name omitted) the principal of the (school name omitted), as a director, can represent the foundation as a member of the board of directors, or as an organization with the right and duty to act in the name of an organization, and without recognizing the principal of the foundation or school’s obligation to pay for the principal of the school, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the principal to the Defendant shall not be paid in bad faith to the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 2 is justified.

Since the school which is operated by the appellate consortium foundation is merely a facility for education, school itself cannot be the subject of the rights and obligations. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the school itself is the principal of the school, and since it cannot be deemed that the school itself is the representative of the juristic person unless there are any special reasons, the check which indicates that it is the principal of the school and issued cannot be the subject of the rights and obligations, it cannot be deemed that the school itself is the representative of the juristic person. Accordingly, according to the records and the original judgment, the defendant issued this check with the name of the principal of the school, and there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant representing (the name of the school omitted) the name of the principal of the high school was issued, but it cannot be deemed that (the name of the school omitted) high school itself is the representative of the principal of the school, and it cannot be issued under the personal responsibility of the defendant since the original judgment cannot be issued under the responsibility of the principal because it is merely an independent opinion. Therefore, this appeal is groundless and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)