In case where a promissory note in the name of the defendant has been issued by a person in the same business relationship with the defendant with his/her seal affixed thereto, or an expression agent;

If Gap and Eul jointly operated the goods sales business, and Eul frequently published Gap's checks as his/her agent, and Gap paid interest on Eul's trade, the above circumstances constitute justifiable grounds for believing that Eul is entitled to issue the above promissory note, in a case where Eul's seal was copied and Gap issued the promissory note to a third party in accordance with the Dog area, and the third party is entitled to issue the above promissory note.

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 61No745 delivered on April 26, 1962, Busan District Court Decision 61Na745 delivered on April 26, 1962

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, based on evidence, rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the defendant and the non-party 1 jointly operated a textile sales business under the trade name of the cooperative company at the same place, and that the above two parties were engaged in current account transactions at the Busan Branch of Hanil Bank and Cho Ho Bank Busan Branch, and the non-party 1 frequently paid interest on the transaction of the non-party 1 on several occasions, and that the non-party 1 paid the interest on the transaction of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 as his representative, the non-party 1 arbitrarily issued the defendant's seal and delivered it to the non-party 2 who was in his custody, and the plaintiff acquired it from the non-party 2, and it cannot be recognized that the non-party 1 had the authority to issue the Promissory Notes. However, according to the above explanation of the court below, even if the non-party 1 did not have the authority to issue the above Promissory Notes as the defendant's representative, it can be justified for the non-party 1 to believe that it is unlawful.

Therefore, by omitting the explanation on the first ground of appeal, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Magsan (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea is a Mag-bunbun Mag-man