A. Whether the head of the site office of a construction company is an expression manager or an employee with a partial comprehensive power of attorney

(b) Whether new activities unrelated to construction works are included in the ordinary business scope of the director of the site of a construction company;

(c) The case holding that the construction company has a justifiable reason to believe that it has the authority to perform the same act as debt guarantee, debt assumption, etc. to be borne by the head of the relevant site office, or at least the other party thereof;

A. The work of a construction company for the purpose of construction can be divided into two parts: (a) the order of construction and the execution of construction; (b) the director of the construction company’s site is a person in charge of only the work related to construction at a specific construction site; and (c) the so-called expression manager, i.e., an employee with a business title of the head office or branch office under Article 14 of the Commercial Act or any other similar name, unless there are special circumstances; and (d) an employee delegated with specific type of business or specific matters under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, who has a partial comprehensive power of attorney.

(b) The scope of ordinary business affairs of the site manager of a construction site is all acts related to the conclusion of a subcontract agreement and the payment of the construction cost thereof, lease contracts of heavy machinery, etc. invested in the construction site, and payment of rent thereof, etc. in addition to the management of materials and labor related to the execution of the construction site, and any small scale of business activities such as conducting new receiving activities unrelated thereto shall not fall under the scope of its business

C. The case holding that, in general, the head of the site office of a construction company cannot be deemed to have been delegated by the company with the authority to perform such acts as debt guarantee or debt assumption, etc. which will be borne by the company, but if the head of the site office is delegated with broad authority to subcontract the construction project of a large scale and conclude a lease agreement on the equipment required for the construction project and the payment of the price therefor, etc., and it is difficult to obtain equipment such as mid-term and the construction project is likely to cause a big trouble if the equipment is not put into the construction project, and the contents of the guarantee are to be paid directly to the mid-term lessee as corresponding to the mid-term rental fee, etc. from among the construction cost to be paid to the mid-term lessee who is given a subcontract for a part of the construction project, the head of the site office of the construction company shall not be deemed to have delegated the above authority to the head of the site office, barring any special circumstances, unless he/she has delegated such authority to the head of the site office by himself/herself.

(a)Article 15(a) of the Commercial Code; Article 15(c) of the Commercial Code; Article 126 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Da107 delivered on October 25, 1983 (Gong1983, 1739) 93Da36974 delivered on December 10, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 351)

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na38807 delivered on March 8, 1994

1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the same defendant.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal against the defendant Hyundai Construction Company are examined.

The work of a construction company for the purpose of the construction business is divided into two categories: the order of construction and the execution of construction. The director of the construction company's site is a person who generally takes charge of the work related to the execution of construction at a specific construction site. Thus, the so-called expression manager, i.e., an employee who has the business title of the head office or branch office and other similar titles, barring any special circumstance, cannot be deemed as a so-called expression manager. It is reasonable to view that an employee who has been delegated with the specific type of business or specific matters as stipulated in Article 15 of the Commercial Act, has the partial comprehensive power

However, according to the records of this case, the non-party who guaranteed the payment of the rent for mid-term period arising from the mid-term rental contract of this case concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant is the site manager of the construction site of the modern chemical factory located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Daejeon-gun, which is executed by the defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the "Defendant Co."), and its scope of business is all acts such as entering into a subcontract agreement and the payment of the construction cost, and the payment of the rent, etc. related to the execution of the construction, in addition to the materials and labor management related to the execution of the construction, and it is clear that the business activities such as the execution of the construction, which are related to the construction, are not included in its scope of business. Thus, even if any small-scale, it cannot be said that the above non-party is the site manager of the defendant Co., Ltd., and thus, the judgment of the court below is just and there

However, as determined earlier, the Nonparty cannot be deemed as an expression manager of the Defendant Company’s construction site and constitutes an employee with partial comprehensive power of attorney. However, insofar as the ordinary scope of business is limited to the matters related to the execution of the construction project as seen above, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s right to perform such acts as debt guarantee or debt assumption, etc., which would normally be borne by the company cannot be deemed as delegation by the company. However, according to the facts duly established by the lower court and the records of this case, the instant construction project performed by the Defendant Company is a large scale of less than 130 million and its management number is more than 50, more than 100, more than 100, more than 100,000, and more than 100,000,000 won as the construction site owner, and the said Nonparty, as well as the above construction site manager, was given a broad authority to perform the construction project as above to the Plaintiff, and thus, it was difficult to deem that there were considerable concerns for the Defendant to pay the above construction cost, among the Plaintiff’s.

Nevertheless, without examining these circumstances, the court below held that the act of guaranteeing the above non-party does not fall under the scope of its partial comprehensive power of attorney, or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of partial comprehensive power of attorney under Article 15 of the Commercial Act. In addition, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of partial comprehensive power of attorney under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, it is just that the court below recognized that the defendant returned 4 of the mid-term period of this case that the defendant leased from the plaintiff to the plaintiff on the same date as stated in its judgment, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, or violation of the reasoning of the judgment. The defendant's grounds for

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant company is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed part are assessed against the same appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)