(a) Where the endorsement in the name of the drawee of a promissory note is forged by his employee, the relationship between the employer's responsibility to the drawee who is a counterfeited person for the holder of the promissory note and the responsibility under the laws of the drawer or other endorsers; and

(b) The case holding that the statute of limitations on the employer's liability of the holder of a promissory note whose endorsement has been forged by his employee shall commence from the time when the judgment on the claim for the amount of the bill against the issuer of the promissory note became final and conclusive, not from the time when the judgment on the claim for the amount of the bill was made conclusive, and that the

A. In the event the endorsement in the name of the drawee of a promissory note is forged by his employee, the holder of the promissory note shall be held liable for tort against the drawee as the user and the responsibility under the bill law borne by the drawer or any other endorser as the holder of the promissory note, regardless of whether or not the holder can exercise his right under the bill law against the drawer of the promissory note or other endorsers, and the holder of the promissory note shall not be entitled to exercise his right to claim damages against the counterfeited person only if the holder is unable to exercise his right under the bill law against the drawer or other endorsers, etc.

(b) The case holding that since the extinctive prescription of employer's liability for the person who acquired a counterfeited promissory note by an employee does not run from the time when the judgment on the claim for the amount of the promissory note against the issuer is final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that he was aware of the damage caused by the forgery of endorsement and the perpetrator at the latest at the time when he claims that the person who participated in the forgery of the promissory note is liable for the payment, and that the time run from that time.

A. Article 756(1) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 66Da1166 delivered on September 20, 1966 (No. 14(3) and 75Da1680 delivered on February 22, 197

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Samsungsung Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na56566 delivered on October 1, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the second ground for appeal by the Defendant-Appellant Lee Jong-woo and the same kind of grounds for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, at around 12:00 on May 8, 1984, Nonparty 1, who was the head of the Defendant’s accounting division, committed an illegal act. At the time of Nonparty 1’s accounting division and offices, the Defendant’s issuance of the non-party 1 Investment Bank Co., Ltd., which was in his custody, stolen one promissory note of KRW 101,157,268, which was in his custody, and then delivered it to Nonparty 1 on the 9th day of the same month, and delivered discount to the Plaintiff on the 9th day of the above 19th day of the above 7th day of the request for the payment of the above discount amount, and received the payment from the Plaintiff on the 9th day of the above 19th day of the above 7th day of the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of the above promissory note, and the Plaintiff’s act of acquiring the above 9th day of the above 1st day of the Plaintiff’s request for payment of the above promissory note should be considered as an unlawful act.

2. However, in the instant case, where an endorsement by the addressee of a promissory note was forged by his employee, tort liability against the holder of the promissory note, and liability under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act borne by the issuer or other endorsers, who is the titleholder, is separate and independent, and the holder of a promissory note may exercise his right under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act against the issuer or other endorsers, regardless of whether or not the holder can exercise his right. The holder of a promissory note shall not be able to exercise his right to claim damages against the addressee or other endorsers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 6Da1166, Sept. 20, 196). In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s judgment was based on the premise that Nonparty 1, who purchased the Promissorysory note in the name of the issuer and Nonparty 1, who was the addressee, was also aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been aware of the forgery of the promissory note in the name of Nonparty 2, who was the addressee, and that Nonparty 2 had been aware of it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below with different purport is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription in the claim for damages due to forgery of a bill, which points out this error.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)