(a) Validity of a protocol for settlement of lawsuits and telephones which violate mandatory regulations;

(b) Whether a company bears the responsibility to express under Article 395 of the Commercial Act in a case where the company permits or neglects to do a legal act by using the name of a simple representative director (affirmative)

(c) Other party to a declaration of intent made by a joint representative director solely with a third party on behalf of the company (=party to a joint representative director who has committed a legal act or a third party who is the other party)

A. The claim that the settlement is null and void as a false representation in conspiracy, even though the content of the settlement is in violation of the mandatory law, since it has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, and the res judicata becomes effective between the parties.

(b) Even if a company permits or neglects to do a juristic act by using a simple representative director's name, the company shall not be exempted from liability for expression under Article 395 of the Commercial Act;

(c) In ratified a juristic act on behalf of a joint representative director with a third party on his/her behalf, such declaration of intention may also be made against a person from among the joint representative director who alone commits the act or a third party who is the other party to the said juristic act;

A. Article 206(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 389(Article 208) of the Commercial Act. Article 395(c) of the Commercial Act. Article 132 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu275 delivered on October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1700) (Gong1991, 468) 90Da9872 delivered on April 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1368), Supreme Court Decision 87Da504 delivered on July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 13199), 8Da128 delivered on October 25, 198 (Gong198, 1467), 91Da19111 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 194) 198Da1381984 delivered on April 13, 198 (Gong198, 198)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1000 decided May 1, 200

Defendant 2 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na13139 delivered on April 8, 1992

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal:

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below as evidence Nos. 7-2, 3, and 4, based on the records, the court below's decision that held that the telephone call between the defendant company and the defendant 2, 3, and 4 on June 2, 1989 was not made solely by the non-party 1 but was made in the presence of both parties, and that the protocol was made. On the other hand, even if the contents of the telephone protocol are in violation of compulsory laws and regulations have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, the court below's decision that the settlement would be null and void as a false declaration agreed with the non-party unless it is revoked by a quasi-adjudication procedure (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu275 delivered on October 13, 198, 90Meu24953 delivered on December 11, 199, 90Da90872 delivered on April 12, 191).

(2) As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2nd Construction Company:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 2, who was registered as the above non-party 1's joint representative director, concluded the above contract with the non-party 1's representative director on October 21, 198 and the non-party 2's name as to the non-party 1's new apartment sale contract with the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 8's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party company's non-party 2's non-party company's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party

In light of the records, the court below's determination of evidence cooking and the above fact-finding of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law in finding facts without any evidence, or in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in judging the value of evidence against the rule of experience, and it can be known that the defendants alleged that they restricted the power of representation of non-party 2 in the legal brief dated September 17, 1991, which was stated on September 18, 191 by the joint representative director as of September 18, 191. Thus, the court below's determination of the above assertion as a restriction of the power of representation of non-party 2 is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendants' assertion, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the omission of judgment as to the above assertion by the joint representative director, and on the other hand, the company cannot be exempted from the liability of expression under Article 395 of the Commercial Act even if the company permits or neglects the legal act to the joint representative director by using the name of a simple representative director (see Supreme Court Decision 918Da14.14.

(3) Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)