Whether the employee of Eul who has been permitted to use Gap's name is responsible for the name lender's act of borrowing money

If Byung, who was the director of the above construction site after obtaining permission from Eul, borrowed funds necessary for the Corporation from Eul, etc. with the approval of Eul while carrying out the construction work as the director of the construction project division of Eul company, the above construction site director of Eul borrowed funds from Eul, etc., even if the above construction site director of Eul borrowed funds from Eul, etc. with the approval of Eul, the fixed money lending was made between Gap and Eul as the executor of the above construction work, and Byung is merely a mistake that the above construction work was carried out as Gap company's employee, and Byung is merely a mistake that Eul has the right to borrow funds for the Corporation for the Corporation, and it is merely a loan of money. Thus, unless it is recognized that Byung, etc. permitted Byung, etc. to use the above employee's name and the employees with the above name have the right to borrow funds for the financing of the Corporation at the construction site of the corporation, it cannot be said that Gap company is liable for the above loan borrowed funds from Eul, etc. as the name lender.

Article 24 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Plaintiffs 1 and 4 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Cho Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1658 delivered on May 4, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 together.

In theory, the non-party 1, who was permitted to use the name of the defendant company for the construction of this case, employed the non-party 2 as the head of the site office and the non-party 3 as the head of the department of the construction work of the defendant company, and the persons who were appointed the non-party 1 as the head of the department of the above division. The plaintiffs borrowed funds necessary for the construction from the plaintiffs with the approval of the above non-party 1, and at the time, the plaintiffs were mistaken for the execution of the above construction work, and the above money was lent from the defendant company. However, the plaintiffs' monetary lending was not made between the above non-party 1 who was permitted to use the defendant company's name for the above construction work of the defendant company, and it was made between the above non-party 2, etc. who was committed as the employees of the defendant company, and the above non-party 2, etc. was merely a mistake that the above defendant company was authorized to use the above company's name and the above money was not authorized to use the above money for the above construction work of the defendant company.

The issue is that the defendant company is liable to repay the funds borrowed from the above non-party 2, etc. to the plaintiffs as the nominal lender, on the premise that the above non-party 2, etc. is liable to repay the funds, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and it cannot be accepted without examining whether there is such an error.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)