whether the person claimed as the director of the company can be seen as the expression manager of that company

The mere fact that the non-party, who had the non-party, allowed the non-party to build a building externally in the name of the defendant company, claimed the director of the branch office of the defendant company, cannot be deemed as constituting an employee who was an employee of the defendant company with the name of business owner or manager similar to the manager of the defendant company, and even if the non-party could be mistaken externally as the director of the branch office or the head of the field office of the defendant company, barring special circumstances such as the supply and demand of construction materials necessary for the construction, appointment of employees, etc., it cannot be deemed that the non-party can make a monetary borrowing in

Articles 14 and 24 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff

Defendant Stock Company

Daegu District Court (83Gahap290)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,00,000 won with the amount of 10,000,000 won from October 10, 1981 to the date of full payment of 40 percent per annum for the remaining amount of 5,00,000 won from October 14, 1981.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

The plaintiff first asserts that the non-party 1 was the director of the defendant company and the head of the Daegu branch office on February 16, 1981, and that on behalf of the defendant company, the non-party 1 agreed 10,000,000 won from the plaintiff, and 5,000,000 won from May 13, 198 of the same year as interest rate of 3% per month, 5% per month, and 1 month after the due date.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above defendant 1 and 2 were forged by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony of the court below and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony of the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's testimony of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 5's testimony of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony.

Next, the plaintiff asserts that under the consent of the defendant company, the non-party 1 performed construction works in the name of the defendant company under the name of "non-party 1" or "non-party 1, the director of the Daegu branch office of the defendant company" or "non-party 1, the director of the Daegu branch office of the defendant company," etc., and that even if not, it constitutes an expression manager or an employee who has a partial comprehensive power of attorney under Articles 14 and 15 of the Commercial Act, the plaintiff is liable to pay the above principal and interest of the loan to the plaintiff, since the non-party

However, it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to view that the non-party 1 was aware of the fact that the non-party 1 was an employee of the defendant company with the name of business owner or any other name similar to the manager, or an employee who was delegated partially by the defendant company with respect to a specific matter. Further, the non-party 1 could be mistaken externally as the head of the defendant company or the head of the branch office or the site office of the defendant company, in addition to the appointment of the construction materials required for the relevant construction, and unless there are special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the lending and borrowing of money under the name of the defendant company can be conducted, unless there are special circumstances, and as long as the person who arranged and arranged the lending and lending was an employee of the non-party 1 who was not the other person, the plaintiff was an employee of the plaintiff who was an employee of the defendant company and was in charge of the non-party 1, without any real relationship with the defendant company, and therefore, the non-party 1 was aware of the fact that he operated the individual business under its own independent account and responsibility.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Jeon Soo-dae (Presiding Judge)