The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 20 million won with 5% interest per annum from February 15, 2011 to August 13, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All remaining appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from February 15, 201 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.

A. From February 2010 to February 18, 2011, Defendant 1 worked as the chief at the branch office of the YAF (hereinafter “instant branch office”) of the Defendant Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Nonghyup”). Nonparty 1 was appointed as a public official around January 17, 1997, and was in charge of the inspection of cadastral records, adjustment of official cadastral records, etc. from the Ministry of Finance and Economy until September 9, 2012, and was released from his position around September 25, 2012 while serving as a public official of Grade VII in the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

B. From 197 to 1997, Nonparty 1 had suffered loss while making a stock investment, he had the Plaintiff, etc. obtained a resident registration certificate and a certificate of seal from the Plaintiff under the pretext of necessity for preparing a tender on February 10, 2011, with the intent to obtain money from the Plaintiff, etc. by forging relevant documents by means of forging the relevant documents, etc., which is a public official of the Yecheon-gun, the Plaintiff, etc., and had the Plaintiff make a false statement to the effect that “The land ( Address 1, 2 omitted) is owned by Ycheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun (hereinafter “each land of this case”) is located in the vicinity of the area where the Gyeongcheon-do Office is to be relocated, and received a resident registration

C. On February 10, 201, at the instant branch, Nonparty 1 opened an account in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the National Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “instant account”) by presenting the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal imprint to Defendant 1, a staff member in charge of Defendant Agricultural Cooperative, and submitting a transaction application with the Plaintiff’s seal imprint affixed thereto. Defendant 1 did not verify whether there was legitimate delegation, such as not requiring Nonparty 1 to demand the Plaintiff’s proxy and seal imprint in the process of opening the instant account. At Nonparty 1’s request, Nonparty 1 stated that “(e.g., in the name of the Plaintiff)” in the column for the Plaintiff’s name.

D. Thereafter, Nonparty 1 affixed the official seal of the Ycheon-gun Office’s civil petition office to the instant account, and demanded the Plaintiff to deposit money into the instant account as the price for each of the instant land, while it is the corporate passbook of the Ycheon-gun Office. Accordingly, on February 14, 2011, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 500 million into the instant account.

E. On February 15, 2011, Nonparty 1 obtained by withdrawing KRW 500 million from the account of this case using the withdrawn money tag on which he/she had affixed the Plaintiff’s seal in advance. Nonparty 1 was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of 8 years of imprisonment for the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on March 7, 2013 on the ground that he/she committed the above fraud against the Plaintiff, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive by the lapse of the appeal period of the Prosecutor and the appellate court that dismissed Nonparty 1’s appeal on June 28, 2013 (Seoul High Court 2013No1477).

F. Meanwhile, around March 2012, Nonparty 1 repaid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100 million out of KRW 500 million acquired by deception.

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, and 9 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Relevant legal principles

It cannot be deemed that a financial institution has a duty to investigate and confirm whether a party to a transaction with a financial institution is a real right holder of the relevant financial assets. However, if a financial institution fails to obtain delegations and certificates of personal seal impression in the course of opening a deposit account from a person who is in its own place of its agent and to fully complete the verification procedure, such as confirming the proxy identity of an agent, it can be easily predicted that a crime of acquiring money by means of receiving money from a bank account opened at will without using another person's name can be easily conducted. Even if a financial institution takes such minimum measures, it may remove a considerable amount of potential risks, other than a financial institution that is going to open a deposit account, and there is no entity that performs the above role. In light of the above, it is deemed that a financial institution has a duty of care not to assist another person's illegal acts by preventing the possibility of using it in criminal acts against an unspecified large number of unspecified victims, and thus, it should be deemed that the financial institution has fulfilled its duty of care and duty to pay damages to a third party 20.5.

On the other hand, it is difficult to view that a fraudulent account opened by a financial institution without due process for identification of identity, etc. is used simply to deposit in order to perform an obligation under a cause contract by a victim already accused in a fraudulent transaction or to deposit and keep benefits acquired by infringing the victim's property rights by any other means or route, etc., barring special circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the victim formed a wrong trust due to the existence of the original account, thereby entering into a cause contract, or the perpetrator has reached an access to and infringement of the victim's property rights due to the existence of the original account. In addition, if a financial institution bears the responsibility for damages incurred by the aforementioned type of criminal act, it is difficult to deem that an unspecified number of unspecified persons should be held liable to a financial institution without discrimination even if damages were incurred by the infringement of property rights, etc. committed against many and unspecified persons, etc., due to the occurrence of the consequence of the financial institution's duty to verify identity, etc., and the purpose and scope of protection of legal interests and interests of the behavior norm imposing on the financial institution.

B. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above legal principles and facts, although Defendant 1, a staff member in charge of the opening of Defendant 1’s account, received the Plaintiff’s proxy certificate and a certificate of personal seal from Nonparty 1, who is the Plaintiff’s agent, and had a duty of care to prevent the Plaintiff’s use of the illegal act, Defendant 1, a staff member in charge of the opening of the Plaintiff’s account, had a duty of care to prevent the Plaintiff’s use of the illegal act. However, Defendant 1, a direct tortfeasor, and Defendant 1, a staff member in charge of the opening of the Plaintiff’s account, was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred to Defendant 1’s joint account by opening the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and a certificate of personal seal from Nonparty 1, who was aware of the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of care. The negligence of Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1, a staff member in charge of the opening of the account, shall be deemed to have a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the Defendant 1’s act of opening the account.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) The Defendants asserted that “Non-Party 1, along with the Plaintiff, exchanged with the instant branch, presented the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal impression, and requested Defendant 1 to open the instant account, so even if Defendant 1 did not confirm the power of attorney and seal impression of the Plaintiff, there is no negligence in opening the said account.”

The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence, the witness testimony and the purport of the entire argument of Nonparty 1, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff consistently asserted that there was no fact in the branch office of this case at the time of opening the instant account; (ii) Nonparty 1 also consistently testified in the investigative agency to the effect that “the Plaintiff opened the instant account at the same time as the instant branch office”; and (iii) Defendant 1 also testified in the investigative agency to the same purport; and (iv) Defendant 1 also testified in the investigative agency that “I are not able to unsatisfy but satisfy, the Plaintiff frequently opened the instant account at the seat of Nonparty 1 at the time of opening the account; and (iv) Nonparty 1 did not directly open the instant account with Nonparty 1 as his agent, and therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the instant account was opened by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 is not reasonable in light of the following reasons.

2) In addition, the Defendants asserted that “the instant account was opened at the Plaintiff’s will, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 500 million in recognition that the instant account was made in the Plaintiff’s name, and the Plaintiff intended to pay KRW 500 million to Nonparty 1 under the name of the Plaintiff’s fee-free loan, so the Plaintiff remitted the money regardless of the name of the account, so there is no causation between the opening of the instant account and the Plaintiff’s damage.”

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the evidence mentioned above and the purport of the entire pleading, i.e., Defendant 1 did not verify at all whether there was legitimate delegation, such as the non-party 1, who had been aware of the fact that the non-party 1 had been in the process of opening the instant account from about 10 years to around 10 years, and the Plaintiff himself did not have separately confirmed his intention to open the instant account. ii) Nonparty 1 opened the passbook under the name of the Plaintiff at the court of first instance to the effect that “the Plaintiff was unable to deposit money with the Ycheon-gun Office corporate passbook. At that time, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 to write the name of “Ycheon-gun” in order to say that there was no wrongful entry of the Plaintiff’s name and the column of the Plaintiff’s name (e.g., the title “Ycheon-gun”) to arbitrarily enter the Plaintiff’s property right to deposit in the instant account or the name of the Plaintiff, which was in violation of the Plaintiff’s trust in the instant account.

3) In addition, the Defendants asserted that “ even if the opening of the accounts by Defendant 1 was a tort against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the money was withdrawn after five days from the date when the money was remitted, and at that time, the Plaintiff was aware of the occurrence of damages. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s damage claim was extinguished upon the lapse of three years from the date when the Plaintiff became aware of the occurrence of damages.”

The term "date when the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damages and the perpetrator" under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act refers to the date when the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damages and the perpetrator actually and concretely. The presumption or awareness of the damages is not sufficient, and not only the fact of the occurrence of damages but also the fact that the harmful act constitutes a tort. That is, the date when the injured party becomes aware of the existence of the illegal harmful act, the occurrence of damages, and the causation between the harmful act and the damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da13282, Mar. 10, 201).

In light of the above legal principles, according to the financial transaction information of the public health team, Eul evidence No. 5, non-party 3's testimony and the order to submit financial transaction information for the party's trial, the plaintiff explained that in the course of transferring KRW 500 million to the account of this case on February 14, 201, the name of the account of this case is the plaintiff from non-party 3 of the credit cooperative's employees to the account of this case. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24480, Feb. 19, 201; Presidential Decree No. 24478, Feb. 19, 2000>

However, on the other hand, the following facts are acknowledged based on the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e.,: (a) Nonparty 1 opened a passbook in the name of the Plaintiff at the trial court; (b) Nonparty 1 sent a copy of the passbook to the Plaintiff by stating that the passbook was opened in the name of the Plaintiff after deposit KRW 500 million with the passbook; and (c) the Plaintiff testified that the passbook was opened in the name of the Plaintiff; (b) Nonparty 1, who is a public official in the Ycheon-gun, Ycheon-gun, was aware of the difference in the name of the deposit owner at the time of transfer; and (d) Nonparty 1’s additional statement of “Ycheon-gun” and the official seal of the Ycheon-gun, which was affixed to the instant account opened by the Plaintiff at the time of transfer, and there is no room to think that the Plaintiff was a virtual payment account in the name of the Plaintiff; and (c) Nonparty 1, around the end of August 2011, no evidence suggesting the Plaintiff’s forgery of each of the instant land in question.

3. Scope of damages.

A. Scope of liability

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff trusted the instant account opened by Defendant 1 to Nonparty 1 and deposited KRW 500 million in the said account, and acquired by Nonparty 1 the amount of the deposit. As such, the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendants’ tort are KRW 500,000,000 equivalent to the amount of the deposit.

B. Limitation on liability

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 3 as a whole the purport of the pleading, namely, ① Nonparty 1 did not have a position to take charge of the non-party 1’s land at the time of the act of defraudation of this case; ② where the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party provides that a contract is to be entered into with a local government, the contract shall be prepared in accordance with the relevant Act, and no contract is effective. However, although the Plaintiff is expected to obtain profits by carrying out military maintenance in an abnormal manner without undergoing due process, such as not preparing a contract for lawful maintenance of the military in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, (3) the Plaintiff did not confirm the exact purpose of the use for the non-party 1’s identification card and seal impression to receive the land of this case by unlawful means, and (4) if the Plaintiff transferred large amount of money to Nonparty 1 without permission, it is reasonable to confirm the scope of damages to the Plaintiff’s owner at the time of transfer of large amount of money and withdrawn it only 5 days.

C. Whether benefits are deducted

The Defendants asserted to the effect that “the Plaintiff was paid KRW 100 million from Nonparty 1 on March 2012, and such amount must be deducted from the Defendants’ damages amount.”

In a case where a part of a debt with a different amount is extinguished due to repayment, etc., the part to be extinguished first shall be deemed the part to be jointly and severally liable with another debtor, not the part to be jointly and severally liable with another debtor, in light of the purport of the joint and several liability system that seeks to ensure the payment of the full amount of the debt (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da87621, Feb. 25, 2010).

In light of the above legal principles, the damage liability owed to the Plaintiff by Nonparty 1 is KRW 50 million (the Daegu District Court resident settlement support case 2013Gahap1777), and the Defendants are liable for non-party 1 and non-party 1 with respect to KRW 200 million out of KRW 500 million. In light of the above legal principles, the amount of KRW 100 million paid by Nonparty 1 to the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be appropriated for KRW 300 million (the amount of the damage liability owed by Nonparty 1 - the amount of KRW 500 million jointly assumed with the Defendants - the amount of the damage liability jointly assumed by the Defendants). As above, the Defendants’ assertion that the amount of the damage liability owed by the Defendants shall be deducted from the amount of the damage liability owed by the Defendants is not all reasonable.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly pay to the Plaintiff 20 million won (50 million won x 40%) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from February 15, 2011 to August 13, 2015, which is the date of the adjudication of the court of the first instance that is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute on the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, as sought by the Plaintiff, from February 15, 201 to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendants ordering payment of money in excess of the above cited money in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancelled part is revoked, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)