The case holding that no change was made on the basis of the claim

If the Defendant’s endorsement of the said Promissory Notes, but the Defendant’s conjunctive endorsement was forged by the Defendant’s employee without authority in connection with the performance of his/her business affairs, the Defendant’s primary claim and the conjunctive claim are merely to resolve disputes arising from the same or the same living facts, and thus, cannot be deemed to have changed to the basis of the claim.

Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act

65Da2028 delivered on November 30, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1522 delivered on November 30, 1965, Decision No. 235(3)939 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff

Jin Chemical Industry Company

Busan District Court (72 Gohap1324)

Supreme Court Decision 74Da808 Delivered on December 24, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit after an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the service day after the delivery day of the copy soar to the full payment day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution, which shall be assessed against all of the first and second trials.

The Defendant’s legal representative asserted that, as the bearer of the Promissory Notes issued by Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s conjunctive claim against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant endorsed the Promissory Notes to the said Promissory Notes, but the Defendant’s conjunctive endorsement added the Defendant’s claim as an employer’s liability on the ground that Nonparty 2, the chief accountant in charge of the accounting and accounting of the Defendant Company, forged the Defendant’s business without authority, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above conjunctive claim and the conjunctive claim cannot be allowed. However, the Plaintiff’s above main claim (the subsequent withdrawal) and the conjunctive claim are based on the facts pertaining to the acquisition of the Promissory Notes, and they merely cause a change in the basis of the claim. Therefore, the above Defendant’s legal representative’s defense of safety is groundless.

In full view of the following facts, Gap evidence No. 10 without dispute over the merits, Gap evidence No. 10, the non-party 3's testimony, and the above witness and non-party 2's testimony prior to remand, the non-party 1 shall prepare one promissory note in which the non-party 1 shall be the non-party 3 as well as the non-party 3, on October 30, 1971, at a face value of 2,000,000 won and at a face value of 2,00,000 won and at a face value of 13,2.13 of the same year, and deliver it to the non-party 3. The non-party 2, the receipt and disbursement books of the defendant company, in collusion with the non-party 3, has used the official seal of the representative director of the defendant company, and the defendant company shall deliver it to the non-party 3 and deliver it again to the above promissory note on October 30, 1971.

However, Nonparty 2, the chief of the receipt and disbursement of the Defendant Company, conspired with Nonparty 3 to forgee the endorsement of the name of the Defendant Company and to deceiving the Plaintiff, so that the said endorsement was duly formed, the Plaintiff trusted the above endorsement and delivered KRW 1,880,000 per month to Nonparty 3, an amount calculated by deducting KRW 120,000 from the par value of the said promissorysory note from KRW 2,00,000 per annum, which was then 1,80,000, which was paid by Nonparty 2. The Plaintiff’s act of forging the counterfeited endorsement was performed in connection with the same person’s business as the principal of the receipt and disbursement, and thus, the Defendant Company, its employer, was liable to compensate for the above amount with the Defendant Company’s title due to the Defendant Company’s unlawful act, and the Defendant’s liability for damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to Nonparty 2’s act of endorsement with the title of the Defendant Company 1 and the purport of the payment of the said promissory note, which was made by Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff’s title 17.

Therefore, the plaintiff's failure to claim the payment of the above amount from the defendant who is the endorser is due to the lapse of the time limit for presentment of payment of the above promissory note regardless of whether the plaintiff's claim was forged by endorsement by the defendant, and even if the act of forging the endorsement by the non-party 2, who is an employee of the defendant company, is related to the operation of the defendant's business, the plaintiff who lost his right to claim the payment of the above promissory note by imposing the time limit for presentment of payment on the non-party 3, is not entitled to claim compensation against the defendant company on the ground that the amount of the claim for the discount lent to the non-party 2 is a loss caused by the forgery of the above endorsement by the non-party 2 (in addition, it is insufficient to conclude that the discount of this promissory note was due to the non-party 2's endorsement by the transfer certificate by the plaintiff, the original judgment is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 96 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)