[1] The standard for determining whether an employee’s place of work, which is the requisite for establishment of an expression manager, has the substance as a branch

[2] Whether a manager's act of a bill of exchange in his/her name for his/her own personal purpose constitutes an act within the scope of the manager's power of representation (affirmative)

[3] The case recognizing the establishment of an expression manager where the local loss of a pharmaceutical company is discounted by forging the endorsement of the representative director for personal purposes

[1] In order to apply Article 14(1) of the Commercial Act, the place of work of an employee must be equipped with an entity as a branch under the Commercial Act. In order for a certain place of business to be equipped with an entity as a branch under the Commercial Act, the place of business shall not be limited to mechanically limited auxiliary affairs under the direction and supervision of the head office or branch office, but shall have an organization capable of independent decision-making on business activities and external transactions from the head office or branch office within a certain scope.

[2] Whether the act of the manager is about the business of the manager shall be determined abstractly according to the objective nature of the act regardless of the manager's subjective intent at the time of the act. Since the act of the bill in the name of the business owner is an act concerning business objectively and falls under the scope of the manager's power of representation, it shall be effective even where the manager performs the act of bill for personal purposes, and this legal principle shall also apply to the expression manager.

[3] The case recognizing the establishment of an expression manager where the local loss of a pharmaceutical company is discounted by forging a representative director's endorsement without authority for personal purposes

[1] Article 14(1) of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 11(1) and 14(1) of the Commercial Act / [3] Article 14 of the Commercial Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 86Da36753 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 723), Supreme Court Decision 96Da36753 delivered on August 26, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2818)

(1) A person who has been admitted to a school shall be exempted from the school.

Defendant (Attorney Yoon-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 96Na1358 delivered on December 20, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the loss of the defendant company was a human organization as stated in its reasoning and was in charge of the business of selling the medicine manufactured by the defendant company to the pharmacy located in the Busan District District District Office, etc., selling the medicine, collecting the price thereof, and depositing in the defendant company at discounted promissory notes, etc. from customers. The above Busan District Court determined that the above Busan District Loss was an entity of the defendant company's Busan Branch.

In order to apply the provisions of Article 14 (1) of the Commercial Act to the Apparent Manager, the place of work of the employee must be equipped with an entity as a branch office under the Commercial Act, and in order for a business place to be equipped with an entity as a branch office under the Commercial Act, the business place must not be equipped with mechanically limited auxiliary affairs under the direction and supervision of the head office or branch office, but be equipped with an organization capable of independent decision-making on business activities and external transactions independently from the head office or branch office within a certain scope. In light of the records, the court below found that the above Busan Loss was judged as above on the premise that it decided on whether to sell drugs independently from the head office and carried out business activities such as selling drugs in accordance with the above decision-making, and therefore, the court below's fact-finding and decision are deemed legitimate, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the substance of the branch office as the requisite for establishment of the Apparent Manager.

The Supreme Court Decision pointing out in the ground of appeal is different from the case, and it is inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Whether the act of a manager is related to the business of the manager shall be determined abstractly according to the objective nature of the act regardless of the manager's subjective intent at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da36753, Aug. 26, 1997). Since the act of a bill issued in the name of a business owner is objectively related to business and is an act within the scope of the manager's power of attorney, and the act of a bill issued in the name of a business owner constitutes an act within the scope of the manager's power of attorney, even if the manager performs the

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that even if the non-party, who is the non-party lost in Busan City, forged an endorsement under the name of the defendant company without any authority for his own personal purpose and discounted the instant promissory note from the plaintiff, it shall affect the defendant company's act as an expression manager, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the power of representation of the manager

3. On the third ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below found that there was an error of not determining the non-party's assertion that the non-party was already aware of the fact that the non-party was not the manager of the defendant company at the time of receiving the transfer of endorsement and transfer of the Promissory Notes. However, even if examining the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and it is obvious that the defendant's above assertion should be dismissed. Thus, the above error of the court

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)