(b) The effects of an agent’s expression of intention or interest against his own intent or interest, and the criteria for determining whether the agent has acted in bad faith or negligence of the other party;

(c) Validity of an agreement to pay interest in violation of Articles 38 and 39 of the Act on Assistance to Savings Increase and Workers' Property Formation;

(d) The case denying the formation of a deposit contract in the so-called “non-party 1” case on the ground that the deposit contract entered into by a depositor through his partner falls under the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act with respect to the expression of non-party

B. In a case where a true expression of intention is made by an agent and the other party knew or could have known that the other party's actual intention was in breach of trust for the benefit of himself or a third party against his own interest or will, the act of the agent cannot be established as his act of representation under the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the other party cannot be held liable for the act of the agent. In this case, whether the other party knew or could have known that the agent knew or could have known of the intention of representation should be determined reasonably based on objective circumstances.

C. According to Articles 38, 39, and 46 of the Act on the Promotion of Savings Increase and Workers’ Property Formation Support, a person operating a savings, a broker, and executives and employees of a savings institution, shall not demand, promise, receive, and punish any unfair profit under any pretext other than the regular interest rate of a bank in relation to the savings, and shall be punished when such violation is committed. Therefore, a contract with the purport of paying the difference between the interest on the bank’s regulations and the interest on the bonds at least is null and void.

D. If the deposit contract is regularly paid more interest than the regular deposit interest rate of a bank, and the deposit is made only at a single branch, while it is possible to make such a deposit, and the deposit should be used when it comes to the deposit, and the deposit transaction application amount is not ordinarily accepted, and the deposit transaction application amount is also divided. In light of the formation process of the deposit contract and its contents, the effect of the deposit transaction application, at least the depositor could not have known, or could not have known, the intention of the representative of the bank, even though he could not have known, due to the gross negligence, that he could have known that he was aware of the intention of the representative of the bank or the third party, and the intention of the representative of the above branch was in breach of trust for his own interest against the intention or interest of the bank, which is the principal, and the depositor also concluded the deposit contract without the knowledge of the intention of the agent's deposit contract, and therefore, the deposit contract itself in this case cannot be established as a tort for the above bank's agent's reason that the deposit contract in this case was not established.

The judgment of the court below, on its reasoning, ruled that the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant bank was duly established by offering money as indicated in the judgment at the ○○ Dong branch office of the defendant bank in the manner of expressing the intent of deposit through his agent and confirming the receipt of money according to the intention of the above branch office, and the exchange of money between the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the defendant bank takes the form of the contract of this case. However, in order to raise the corporate fund to raise the business fund of the non-party 2 who is the chairperson of the △△ Group, the above branch office representative of the above branch office and the non-party 1 did not agree with the plaintiff, or could have known or known that the plaintiff was not the intention of the above non-party 1's deposit contract, so the above contract of this case was not effective for

In other words, unlike ordinary ones, the deposit contract of this case was made by an abnormal method, such as a deposit passbook which is composed of a loan interest rate of approximately three times the regular deposit interest rate of the bank. Among them, the difference between the bond interest and the regular deposit interest of the bank is paid periodically through the bond broker, not only is it possible to make a regular deposit at the ○○ Dong branch of the defendant bank, but also when it is possible to make a deposit only at the ○○○ branch of the several branches of the defendant bank, and it is always known that the above bank's employees have made a deposit account at the above 3-month maturity as the bond broker knew, and the amount of the deposit contract of this case is also to be submitted in blank, and the deposit account amount is also made by an abnormal method, such as a deposit passbook without using a mechanical deposit passbook in the form of a computer which is an ordinary method, but on the other hand, the deposit account of this case was made in accordance with the regular form of the defendant bank's bank's bank, and there was no abnormal method of payment from the bank's deposit interest rate or the deposit account interest rate.

In examining the record based on the above facts, it cannot be deemed that the contract of this case was concluded by a conspiracy with the Plaintiff by Nonparty 1, the above non-party 1, and thus, rejected the assertion of the Defendant Bank on the same purport, the court below’s decision is just and acceptable, and further, it should be viewed as whether the contract of this case was effective, focusing on the assertion that the Defendant Bank would be able to express its intention not as a medical doctor.

In light of the foregoing, Article 107(1) of the Civil Act provides that "the expression of intention shall be effective even where the reporter knows, or could have known, that he or she would have become aware, of his or her intention." This provision provides that "If the other party knows, or could have known, of his or her intention, it shall be null and void." This provision provides that if the other party's intention is not in accord with that of his or her own intention, it shall have the effect as indicated, and does not protect his or her false opinion, but if the actual intention of the other party is bad faith or negligent, it shall be determined by the other party's objective act in accordance with the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Act, without the need to protect his or her other party's intention. Furthermore, if the other party's expression of intention is made by his or her agent and the other party's expression of intention was made by his or her agent for his or her own interest against his or her own interest, he or she shall not be reasonably aware of the other party's act.

Therefore, first of all, the deposit contract of this case was made between Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff as the agent of the head of the above branch, and even if Nonparty 1 did not have the authority to act on behalf of the Defendant bank in connection with the deposit business, it appears that the Plaintiff, the other party, as the Plaintiff, had the authority to act on behalf of the Defendant bank, and therefore, the above deposit contract of this case appears to be effective against the Defendant bank. However, although the above act of proxy by Nonparty 1 was in conflict with the intent or interest of the Defendant bank, it was intended to promote the interests of the above Nonparty 2 by raising bonds by taking advantage of the form of deposit against the intent or interest of the Defendant bank. If the Plaintiff knew, or could have known, of the fact, that the deposit contract of this case made by the above Nonparty 1 as the agent of the Defendant bank, it cannot be established as the act of proxy of the Defendant bank, and thus the Defendant bank shall not be liable for it.

However, it is true that the court below acknowledged that the contract in this case was concluded at the normal transaction time and place of the above branch, or the interest interest rate under the regular deposit interest rate of the bank was paid at the above branch, or although the deposit contract in this case was concluded at the regular deposit interest rate of the bank, it cannot be viewed as the ground for rejecting the defendant's assertion solely on the ground that it was abnormal as pointed out by the court below, and the fact that the bank did not pay the case expenses to the deposit owner for the purpose of attracting deposits or to pay the difference between the interest and the bank's interest at the expense of the lending user and the bank's interest, and that the fact that the bank did not have an actual example of creating the deposit with the bank was not a change in the above case, even if there is no evidence to support the existence of such a change in the records, it cannot be viewed that the contract in this case did not violate the law and order of the bank, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there was a violation of the law and order of the financial institution's ordinary deposit interest and etc.

If the grounds for rejecting the claim of the Defendant bank are the abnormal method of the instant deposit contract, that is, the fact that the lower court recognized that the deposit contract of this case was the abnormal method of the instant deposit contract, namely, the deposit contract of this case is regularly paid more interest than the regular deposit interest rate of the Defendant bank, and such deposit is possible only at the ○○ Dong branch of the Defendant bank, and the deposit should be used when the deposit is made, and the amount in the deposit transaction application form is more space and the deposit transaction application amount is issued, but it is not ordinary method, the Plaintiff, a depositor, at least, cannot be recognized as having known, or could not have known, due to gross negligence, that the Plaintiff could not have known, that he had known, or could not have known, that he could have known, that he could have known, at least the fact that he could have known, it is reasonable in light of the formation process and contents of the instant deposit contract, and the effects arising therefrom

In this regard, the intention of the above non-party 1 in relation to the contract of this case was in breach of trust for his own interest or for the interest of the above non-party 2 against the intent or interest of the defendant bank, and the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case with the above non-party 1 without knowledge that the contract of this case was not true, and thus, in relation to the plaintiff and the defendant bank, the contract of this case was not formed by the principal in relation to the contract of this case with the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff should be held liable to the defendant bank for his tort on the ground that the plaintiff is the user of the above non-party 1, and it is not possible to claim the return of the deposit on the premise that the contract of this case was established.

In addition, even though it was revealed that the Plaintiff’s intent of the deposit contract in Nonparty 1 was not the truth of the Plaintiff’s intention to pay attention, it would not be reasonable to deem that, even though Nonparty 1 was solely responsible for the fact that Nonparty 1 was an employee of the Defendant bank, or that, even though the Plaintiff, who was able to know, attempted to use a financial institution’s mistake in an abnormal and unlawful manner by searching only high interest rate that would disrupt the financial order through a financial institution, he did not bear any responsibility for the Plaintiff, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to enjoy the benefit entirely from the fact that it was not reasonable in terms of the equitable sharing of damages arising from the deposit contract in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below ordered the Defendant bank to pay the instant deposit on the premise that the deposit contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant bank was effective shall be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment on the ground that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of an expression of intention, not the truth due to the establishment of the deposit contract in Madles and the validity of the agency act, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the agency act. Such illegality of the court below is recognized as

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)