The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the payment guarantee act on each check issued by the non-party 2 was related to the non-party 1's execution of the business of the defendant's association, which was the non-party 1's deposit office of the defendant's non-party 1, and thus the defendant's association's payment guarantee act as the non-party 1's employee should compensate for the plaintiff's damage caused by the above payment guarantee act. However, according to the defendant's legal brief as stated on the first day of June 23, 1970 as stated on the first day of the court below, according to the defendant's legal brief as of June 23, 1970, it can be seen that the defendant's deposit office of the defendant's association has the authority to provide the loan business even to the head of the deposit office of the defendant's association. Thus, the court below cannot be viewed as a close relation to the payment guarantee business as stated in its decision. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the remaining legal principles.

The issue is with merit on this point, and the original judgment is reversed by omitting an explanation of the argument on other appeal, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)