(a) The case holding that the company is an employee with a partial comprehensive power of attorney;

(b) Other acts of representation of an employee with a partial comprehensive power of attorney and the liability of the company which is a business owner;

A. If the head of the operating division and the head of the division of the company were engaged in the business of selecting a trading line, concluding a contract, setting a security, purchasing fish products, selling fish products, and managing fish inventory, etc., even if the business was performed with the approval of the president, etc., he/she shall, even if he/she had been performed with the approval of the regular director and the president, be an employee who has a partial comprehensive power of attorney as to the business.

(b) Where a commercial employee, who has a partial comprehensive power of attorney, assumes an act of assuming an obligation by a company that does not fall under the scope of his/her power of representation, if the company is liable as his/her principal, there is any justifiable ground to believe that the other party who has transacted with the commercial employee has such power

(b)Article 15 of the Commercial Code;

Supreme Court Decision 74Da492 delivered on June 11, 1974, 65Da2295 delivered on January 31, 1966

Attorney Lee Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na4889 delivered on July 4, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the head of the business of the defendant company, were not in charge of the above issuance of the plaintiff company's sales proceeds to the non-party 3, who is an employee of the plaintiff company, as security for the defendant company's obligations. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not in charge of the above issuance of the non-party company's authority to the non-party 1,04 and the 1,040 boxes under the name of the defendant company (the non-party 1) to prepare and deliver a certificate of storage of the plaintiff company (the non-party 1). The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not in charge of the above issuance of the defendant company's authority to the non-party 4, who are in charge of the above issuance of the plaintiff company's main request without the approval of the head office, conclusion that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were in charge of the above issuance of the company's authority.

The court below's decision that the defendant company's sales division non-party 1 and the representative non-party 2 have the power to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the right to claim the goods of this case. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the contents of the plaintiff's primary claim or by omitting

If the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the chief executive officer of the defendant company, are engaged in the business of selecting a trading line, concluding a contract, establishing collateral, purchasing fish products, selling fish products, and managing fish inventory at the time of issuance of the warehouse storage certificate of this case, as determined by the court below, the non-party 1 and the chief executive officer of the defendant company shall be an employee who has the partial comprehensive power of attorney (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da492 delivered on June 11, 1974) as an "employee who has been entrusted with a specific type of business or specified matters" under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, even if the above business was performed with the approval of the president, etc., but the agreement of this case which constitutes the act of assuming debt obligations of the defendant company cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the above power of attorney, and if the defendant company is responsible as the principal, there is a justifiable reason to believe that the plaintiff company, who traded with the above commercial employee with the general power of attorney, has its authority to do so (see Supreme Court Decision 25Da295295 delivered.

The court below's conclusion that the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not have a partial comprehensive power to act on behalf of the defendant company, or rejected the plaintiff's letter of representation on the premise of the above agreement does not extend the defendant company to the defendant company is legitimate. Thus, there is no error of law by misapprehending legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit, or by misapprehending legal principles as to the omission of judgment, failure to bear the burden of proof, failure to exercise the right to request explanation,

With respect to the second ground:

The court below did not make an explicit decision on the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party corporation suffered losses due to the non-party corporation's failure to acquire the collateral of this case which was offered to secure all the obligations owed to the plaintiff. However, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment on this point since it did not include the purport of rejecting the plaintiff's assertion in the holding that the damages suffered by the plaintiff company due to the tort of this case by the above non-party non-party, who is the employee of the defendant corporation, are within the scope of the price of the goods offered as security, which is 247,306,40 won of the sales

In addition, the court below recognized the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the damages and decided to the effect that the ratio of the plaintiff company's fault should be up to 30 percent when considering the facts stated in the judgment. If the circumstances leading up to the damages of this case are the same as the original adjudication, the court below's judgment that deemed the plaintiff company's negligence as 30 percent in this case is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence

2. We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to paragraphs 1, 3

All theories are purporting to criticize the judgment of the court below by citing evidence preparation and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is the fact-finding court. The court below is just in examining the process of evidence collection through the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence selection, such as the theory of lawsuit.

With respect to the second ground:

The theory of lawsuit is a new fact that was not asserted by the original court and cannot be employed as it is a dispute over the facts duly established by the original court.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)