Issuance of forged Promissory Notes by Employees and Liability of Employers

In the text of the law regarding the employer's liability for compensation as stipulated in Paragraph 1 of this article, the phrase "for the execution of the employee's duties" includes the case where it shows that the specific duties do not belong to the employee's act of performing his duties, even though it does not belong to the employee's act of performing the duties, it is similar to the act of the employee's act of performing the duties.

Article 756(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korean Educational Federation (Attorney Jeon Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na181 delivered on May 10, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal as to the foregoing.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

In the text of the law on the employer's liability for damages as stipulated in Article 756 (1) of the Civil Code, it is reasonable to view that even if the specific work does not belong to the employee's act of performing his duties, it includes the case where it appears that it belongs to the act within the scope of the employee's act of performing duties, as it is similar to the act of performing duties of the employee, even if the specific work does not belong to the employee itself.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the non-party, who is the general secretary in charge of the accounting affairs of the defendant association, issued the bill of this promise using the official seal of the representative of the defendant association in his duties, even if it is forged or falsified, if it is considered to be external form, it also enters the scope of the execution of affairs of the defendant association under Article 756 (1) of the Civil Code

The court below also held that the defendant association has a large number of business affairs of the nature that can issue the original promissory note, in light of the purpose of the defendant association or its business contents (see subparagraph 14). Therefore, even though the forgery of the original promissory note by the above non-party is not forged with regard to the expenses incurred by the operation of the business of the defendant association, the defendant association is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the issuance of the original promissory note.

The judgment of the court below or the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this, does not confirm the business category and contents of the defendant association as pointed out the arguments, but such a so-called “this is not likely to affect the judgment of the court below.” In addition, since the above-mentioned non-party’s promissory note, which was forged and issued, was acquired by the plaintiffs in good faith and without fault, the court below made detailed that the plaintiffs suffered damages in detail.

The issue is that the plaintiffs lent each of the original claims to the Central Islands Co., Ltd. and have received endorsement of promissory notes which are considered as the collateral, but the court below has made a reasonable decision on this point, and there is no evidence as such.

In short, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing or in the exercise of the right to ask for a tiny.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

Since the Plaintiffs received endorsement of the Promissory Notes from Nonparty Central Islands Co., Ltd., there is no doubt that the Plaintiffs have the right of recourse under the Bill Act against the above endorser. However, the Plaintiffs have the right of recourse under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act against the Central Islands Co., Ltd. regarding the Promissory Notes, and it cannot be said that there was no right of recourse against the Defendant Association, the holders of the Promissory Notes, who would have caused the forgery of the Promissory Notes, to be liable for damages under Article 756 of the Civil Act.

If the holder who has acquired such forged bill of exchange fails to receive the payment of the bill from the drawee, it would be good for the holder to regard that there was a significant loss. Moreover, there is no doubt about the fact that the plaintiffs can be viewed as a third party under Article 756(1) of the Civil Code. This is because the above third party refers to any person other than the employee who directly committed the harmful act with the employer.

As seen above, if the plaintiffs are liable to compensate for damages against the defendant association as in this case, it is not clear that the liability for damages caused by the tort would have been distributed through forged bills, but all of the holders of bills can not be forced as long as they correspond to the third party.

Therefore, this result cannot be said to be contrary to the principle of simplification of responsibility.

In this case, if the court below acknowledged the right of recourse against the drawee against the bill holder and, on the other hand, decided that the defendant union, who provided an opportunity to issue the forged bill, did not conflict with the employer's liability for damages, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the circulation of the promissory note, such as the opinion of the court below, or by misunderstanding the independence of the act of the bill. Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the intention of the third party as provided in Article 756 of the Civil Act due to confusion with the parties to the bill of exchange and tort, and there is no inconsistency with the reasoning. In this regard, the court below is not able to adopt the argument that there is misconception of the law and the

The issue is on the premise that the plaintiffs received endorsement of the Promissory Notes from the Central Islands Co., Ltd., the amount stated in the Promissory Notes is separately lent to the above company to the above company, and the theory is developed on the premise that the fact that they received the Promissory Notes as the collateral is limited to the time limit, but the entry in the above briefs is not of such nature that they can read.

(3) On the third ground for appeal:

The Nonparty, who forged or used this Promissory Notes, is a person with a significant interest in the education community, and only that person is regarded as his academic background or career, can be deemed as having fulfilled his duty of care in appointing the Nonparty as an employee, but it cannot be viewed as such.

In addition, as argued in the arguments, the supervision over the use of the official seal of the defendant association is strict, and when the defendant association issues a promissory note according to the promissory note, the payment bank shall be designated, in addition to the official seal of the representative of the defendant association, the chief director and the general executive director shall be stamped, and even the bank which is the place of payment has reported the official seal and the private person, the defendant association shall not be deemed to have fulfilled its duty of due care in supervising

The court below's decision is just in holding the same opinion as a party member at the above two branches, and there is no illegality that recognized the degree of the defendant's duty of care.

The issue is that the plaintiffs did not compare their seal impression with the bank, which is the place of payment, in the acquisition of the Promissory Notes, and the two copies of the Promissory Notes, which are 500,000 won or more, have no date of issuance. In addition, in the issuance of the Promissory Notes, it is common that the private seal is affixed in addition to the official seal of the head of the agency, and in the issuance of the Promissory Notes, the plaintiffs acquired the Promissory Notes with no such private seal, which is negligent on the part of the plaintiff. However, it is difficult to view the above circumstance alone that the plaintiffs

Therefore, the court below did not consider the plaintiff's negligence while citing the plaintiff's main claim.

Some of the arguments have developed a theory on the premise that the above non-party was dismissed on May 21, 1962. However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, it can be known that the defendant association actually dismissed the above non-party after June 10, 1962. However, the date of dismissal is merely a mere retroactive presentation after the past.

Therefore, there is no argument on this sub-paragraph. In addition, there is no legal principle that it should be distinguished from the case of a non-profit organization in terms of the employer's duty of care for the appointment of employees and the supervision of affairs, because the public interest organization such as the Defendant Union is required as well as the person in charge is an honorary position.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.