The case that the issuer of a promissory note issued without the qualification of representative director of the company is deemed a company.

The fact that the company has led to the confession of the issuance of a promissory note in the lawsuit, and the promissory note is issued with the mark of the issuer as "○○ Company A (A)" which is the name of the company Gap by the representative director of the company Gap, and the place of payment is also the place of payment, and there is no mark of the representative director's qualification in a promissory note, and even if Gap (A) is affixed with personal seal, it can be recognized that Gap (A) was not issued by the individual, but that it was issued

Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Sung-sung Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 78Na638 delivered on December 1, 1978

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat ambiguous, but the above determination by the court below is justified in the record and it cannot be said that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles due to incomplete deliberation as to the theory of lawsuit, in full view of the fact that this promissory note was issued by the defendant company as the non-party representative director of the defendant company, and that this promissory note was issued as the non-party to the E.S. Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., the name of the defendant company while in office by the non-party representative director of the defendant company, and the place of payment is also the defendant company. In addition, even if the non-party's personal seal is stamped, it is not issued by the non-party representative director of the defendant company, but issued it in the qualification of representative director of the defendant company.

Judgment on the second ground;

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there was no causal relationship between the defendant company's loan of KRW 9,00,000 on the face value of KRW 2,00,000 among them, since the defendant company did not borrow KRW 2,00,000 from the plaintiff, and therefore there was no factual relationship. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's testimony of the witness Eul-2 through 4 (each receipt) corresponds to this, cannot be trusted in light of the description in the above documentary evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

However, the above Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 through 4 are all receipts issued by the plaintiff in connection with the repayment of the Promissory Notes, for which the authenticity is recognized by the plaintiff, and the contents are "part of KRW 9,000,000". On the other hand, the end includes "No. 7,000,000 won as principal" or "no. 7,000,000 won as principal was repaid" or "no. 7,000,000 principal was repaid" and the word is combined with the word "no. 7,00,000 won as principal and interest thereon were paid to the plaintiff, or the defendant company can read the purport that the principal was paid to the plaintiff as principal amount of KRW 9,00,000,00 as principal, and if so, no. 7,000,000,000 were actually accepted as principal at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes.

As above, if there are two parts in which the context does not contact with the receipt, it shall be determined without contradiction by making the Plaintiff, the issuer of this receipt, clarify the contact relationship between the Plaintiff and the above two parts, and only if this is not justified, it shall be determined with the evidence of one party. In this case, the lower court adopted a part of the receipt as evidence and rejected the remainder of the entry. Accordingly, the lower court failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or violated the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed by accepting the defendant's ground of appeal against the rules of evidence, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)