The name shall be deemed to be a branch under the Commercial Act which has independent authority to conduct business activities, separate from the head office in the name of the defendant company's net thousand branch office or within a certain scope.

The office of Samyangyang-gun has a large number of offices with the second floor building and annex building at Ycheon-si, and there are ten employees such as the chief of general affairs and the chief of accounting division, and the head of the branch office represents the branch office and supervises its employees. In addition, the business territory of the above sub-branch is the members of the Hancheon-si, Jincheon-si, Jincheon-si, Samcheon-gun, Cheongcheon-gun, Goyangyang-gun, and Yangcheon-gun, in the sales and business area of alcoholic beverages produced by the defendant company, and the purchase of small raw materials in the sales and business area of alcoholic beverages manufactured by the defendant company and entered into a current account transaction contract with the said branch office. Thus, the above sub-branch is different from the shop, station, and sub-branch, which are merely engaged in mechanical transactions, and therefore, it is unreasonable to regard it as a branch under the Commercial Act because it had an organization that can independently determine business activities and conduct external transactions, separately from the head office.

Article 35 of the Commercial Act, Article 10 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da792 delivered on July 2, 1968

Plaintiff

Sam school support corporation

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (66A755) Macheon Branch Court of the District Court

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 80 million won with 36% interest per annum from February 1, 1966 to the full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (1).

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Considering the testimony of the court below and the testimony of the non-party 1 as well as the fact that the non-party 2 testimony of the court below and the defendant are the non-party 3 witness, the defendant company has a business office in the name of "Yeoyang-gun's office". The above branch office has a large number of offices with the second floor building and its affiliated buildings at the central office of Ycheon-si, and there are 10 employees such as six directors such as the chief of general affairs, two directors and two directors, and two directors, etc., and the former employees are under the direction of change of the branch office on behalf of the defendant company, and the former employees are under the control of the branch office at the above 0th office's office's office's name and the above 0th office's office's office's name and the above 0th office's office's name and the above 0th office's office's name and the above 0th office's name and the above 0th office's name and the above 0th office's office's net account transactions.

According to the testimony of the court below and the non-party 1 and the contents of the evidence No. 1 of the court below, the non-party 3 obtained a loan from the plaintiff on August 31, 1965 with the funds of the defendant company on August 31, 1965, with a monthly interest rate of 80,000 won, and with a maturity of 1965.2.31, with a maturity of 1965, issued a check of the unit value of the above branch office in the name of the above branch office in the name of the above branch office. The interest was paid every month, but the interest was paid every month, but the above branch office's official seal of the above branch office and the private person had already been submitted for 2 months since it was impossible to repay the principal and interest on the above repayment date, and the plaintiff did not reverse the above statement of unit value of the defendant company on February 28, 196 (including one-month interest) with a maturity of 848,000 won.

The defendant's attorney asserted that the sheet used as Gap evidence No. 1 was issued by the defendant's representative using a paper issued by the defendant's company to the above sub-branch of the defendant's company, not the sheet of the party shares, and thus, it is true that the non-party 3, the above branch office of the defendant's company, borrowed money from the plaintiff under the name of the defendant's company's funds, and that the non-party 3, as recognized in the former part, borrowed money from the plaintiff under the name of the non-party 3, the defendant's representative, using the private person who submitted to the bank and the official seal, issued a check meeting the requirements for the statement of the check with the plaintiff's net point of payment, and thus, it does not bring about

In addition, the defendant company's legal representative is responsible for the defendant company's domestic affairs, and the defendant company paid a sum of KRW 300,000 to the plaintiff around October 1967 and agreed to receive the remainder of the money. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 80,000 and the legal interest rate of KRW 300,000 per annum from February 1, 1966 to the full payment rate of KRW 5%. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be justified and the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be accepted. The judgment of the court of first instance, which is based on this conclusion, is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant who has lost the lawsuit. It

Judges Kim Dong-ok (Presiding Judge)