2011년 상법총칙·상행위법 판례의 회고

In 2011, the Supreme Court decided that the office of an attorney-at-law is not regarded as the place of business as long as he is not a merchant to whom the Commercial Act is applied. However, the difference between the nature of services supplied by an attorney and that supplied by a merchant is so unclear that the Commercial Act may be applied to an attorney in the future. The Court also declared that the liability of the person who lent his name and the person who borrowed the name is joint and several. According to the decision of the Court, a proprietor of a business cannot commit the crime of embezzlement since he is not a manager of assets belonged to other persons. In addition, the Court decided that from the perspective of law, the inner structure of the undisclosed association is not the same as that of Innengesellschaft. The Court's instruction does not coincide in opinion of the majority of law scholars. The Court tells that a quasi-commission agent is considered a trustee of trust relationship. However, the treatment of him as a trustee cannot explain the legal meaning of the article 103 of the Commercial Act.