Even if the Plaintiff believed to borrow 460,000 won from the above branch office of Defendant Bank (A) by deception of Defendant Bank (B), in general, it cannot be said that the bank borrowed 460,000 won from the bank to the individual in light of its general view, and it cannot be said that the Plaintiff, a large number of bank transactions, was unaware of such circumstances, and therefore, it cannot be said that the act of borrowing money from the Plaintiff to the above (B) is an act of acting as the head office of the branch office of Defendant Bank or an act related thereto.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the testimony of the witness non-party 1 and the result of the appraisal of the non-party 2's seal impression and the purport of the pleading, the court below held that the non-party 3 issued a promissory note (Evidence No. 1) with the signature of the representative of the branch office above the defendant bank as a collateral for its debt, and that the non-party 4 issued the above promissory note with the signature of the representative of the branch office above the defendant bank's signature and transferred it to the plaintiff on March 27, 1969 due to the non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's dismissal of position and the seal collection of the representative's official seal of the branch office office's office's non-party 4,000 won, and that the court below's judgment was legitimate in finding that the above promissory note was not in violation of the rules of evidence or non-party 460 days's.

(2) For the purpose of Article 756 of the Civil Act, the term "business execution" means that it is reasonable to regard an employee's act against a third party as "in the course of performing the business's original or related to the employee's act," and therefore, in this case, even if the plaintiff believed that the employee's act of borrowing 460,000 won from the above branch's above by the non-party 3's deception of the above branch's above non-party 3, it cannot be deemed that the bank's act of borrowing 460,000 won cannot be viewed as a private individual's act of borrowing money from the plaintiff of the non-party 3 as an agent of the branch's above of the defendant bank or an act related to the employee's act, and the court below's decision that the plaintiff's act of borrowing money from the plaintiff of the non-party 3 cannot be viewed as a legitimate act of the non-party 3's act of borrowing money, or that the court below's decision is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)