1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the underlying facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to adding “A 9” and “B 3” to the grounds for recognition between acts 6 through 7 under Article 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of Paragraph 1.
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. According to the plaintiff's assertion 1), although the new registration of the Internet banking is necessarily required to confirm the plaintiff's identity, the defendant's employee registered the Internet banking without the plaintiff's identity verification procedure, this constitutes a tort based on intention or negligence. C after the opening of the account in this case, received the passbook and the seal imprint certificate from B, and had B withdraw the money after obtaining approval if necessary for the operation of the company, and the defendant's employee could withdraw the money of this case without the plaintiff's permission. The defendant's employee can withdraw the money of this case without the plaintiff's permission by registering the Internet banking. Accordingly, the defendant's employee is liable for compensation for damages of the plaintiff as the defendant's employee who is a joint tortfeasor. The defendant's employee's employee is merely registered the Internet banking upon the request of the plaintiff, which is a comprehensive right of representation concerning the management of the plaintiff's property, and Article 6 (2) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act does not explicitly prohibit the defendant's application for the defendant's internal banking business.
Even if the defendant's employee is the Internet Bank.