(a) Whether the executive director, who is an institution of a stock company, may concurrently serve as an employee of that company;

(b) The validity of a promissory note issued by forging the head of Dong of the representative director of the company for personal use by employees who concurrently hold the comprehensive power of attorney on accounting affairs; and

In the event that an executive director, who is an institution of a stock company, concurrently serves as an employee of the same company, and concurrently works as an employee with an overall power of attorney in connection with such accounting affairs, has issued a promissory note by forging the seal of the representative director of that company for personal use, the company may not be exempted from its liability for such bill unless it is proved that the addressee was aware of such circumstances.

Article 15 of the Commercial Act, Article 514 of the Civil Act

E. E. E.S.

Dong Bank interest business corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1285 delivered on February 1, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1285 delivered on February 1, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s legal representative are examined, and even if the executive director, who is an agency of the Defendant Company, may concurrently serve as an employee of the said company. Thus, the lower court found that Nonparty 1, the executive director of the Defendant Company, based on evidence, was an employee of the Defendant Company, pursuant to Article 15 of the Commercial Act with comprehensive power of attorney on the ordinary affairs by the representative director of the Defendant Company. Thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, and did not err in matters of logical rules or rule of experience in the evidence preparation and fact-finding of the lower court. Further, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the Defendant Company, while it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the Defendant Company, since Nonparty 1 borrowed money from Nonparty 2 in order to use the Promissory Notes as a business fund for the securities transaction operated by himself at the time of issuance of the Promissory Notes, and issued the Promissory Notes with the seal of the Defendant Company, and thus, the Defendant’s defense that the Defendant did not know or the Defendant’s seal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro