[손해배상청구사건][고집1974민(2),1]
Whether the bank is liable for damages caused by the act of guarantee against payment of a bill without authority of the Deputy Director of the Bank.
Although the act of payment guarantee by Nonparty 1, who was the vice president of the above branch office, has no validity as a guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, this is closely related to the attraction, securing, and lending of deposits, which are the original business of the vice president of the same branch office assisting the director of the branch office throughout the whole business as seen above, and it is deemed that the act falls under the act of transaction's duty in appearance similar to the act of duty in appearance, and therefore, the defendant bank is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff as an employee of Nonparty 1.
Article 756 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 72Da1054 delivered on August 31, 1972 (Kakad 10218 Supreme Court Decision, 202Du20278 delivered on May 13, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 75Da53 delivered on May 13, 1975 (Kakad 10960; Supreme Court Decision 23Du560 delivered on May 13, 1975; Supreme Court Decision 74Da1583 delivered on May 27, 1975 (No. 10967 delivered on May 23, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 756(97)56(2) of the Civil Act; Court Gazette No. 7562 delivered on May 27, 1975; Decision 74Da1583 delivered on May 27, 1975 (No. 78 of the Supreme Court Decision; Decision 756(562) of the Civil Act)
Plaintiff
Korea Housing and Commercial Bank
Busan District Court (72 Gohap1613)
The original judgment shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,800,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from November 4, 1972 to the full payment.
The plaintiff's remaining claims and the defendant's appeal are dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (2).
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the next day from the service of the copy soar to the full payment system.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
A provisional execution may be carried out only under paragraph (1).
(1) The plaintiff's purport of appeal
The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked and the purport of the claim.
(2) The defendant's purport of appeal
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
In light of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 9-3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, Gap evidence Nos. 6, and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6 which were the authenticity of the above testimony by non-party Nos. 1 and 2 of the court below's testimony, the non-party Nos. 2 and the non-party Nos. 1 and 6 of the above testimony of the non-party Nos. 5 and the non-party Nos. 1 and 7 of the non-party Nos. 1 and 9 of the non-party Nos. 1 and 2 of the non-party Nos. 1 and the non-party Nos. 1 and 2 of the non-party Nos. 1 and the non-party Nos. 97 of the non-party No. 2's offering of these certificates to the plaintiff No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 were issued. 7.
Therefore, the plaintiff's attorney is a principal claim and the payment guarantee against this promissory note was duly made by the non-party 1 according to the intention of the non-party 3, which is the head of the Busan Branch of the defendant bank. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the above promissory note to the plaintiff as a guarantor under the bill law. However, the defendant's partial testimony of the non-party 1 and the defendant's interrogation protocol (1 and 2 times) of the non-party 1 among the criminal records verification results of the court below's judgment, and each of the records of the non-party 1 among the records verification of the court below's criminal records, it is hard to recognize this only with the records of the evidence No. 3 and the records of the protocol, each of the records of the records, and the plaintiff's personal examination results of the court below's judgment, and there is no other evidence supporting the above assertion, and the payment guarantee act was done with the non-party 1, the head of the branch office assisting the head of the branch office over the whole affairs of the defendant.
Then, even if the payment guarantee act of this case made in the name of the non-party 1, who was the vice head of the above branch office, in the name of the head of the same branch office, is not effective as a guarantee under the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, this act is not only closely related to the securing of deposit and lending business, which is the original business of the vice head of the same branch office assisting the head of the branch office throughout the whole business affairs, but also is seen as an act belonging to his duties in transaction because it is similar to his duties in appearance. Thus, the defendant bank is liable for compensating the plaintiff for damages caused to the plaintiff due to the act of the non-party 1's guarantee as an employee in this Promissory Notes. The defendant's attorney prepared a payment guarantee letter by actively inducing the non-party 1 to the same branch office with the knowledge that the non-party 1 did not have the authority to carry out the payment guarantee act in the name of the head of the same branch office. This is the act of the non-party 1's act of false representation.
Furthermore, as seen in this case, the plaintiff had already been able to pay 2,00,000 won to the non-party 1 who believed the act of this payment guarantee and did not receive this money. The damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the act of the non-party 1 is the above 2,00,000 won. However, according to the non-party 6's testimony, the statement of the evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the court below's witness Eul, which is recognized as the authenticity by the non-party 6's testimony, and the witness's testimony, the financial institution's payment guarantee on the check or promissory note issued by the non-party 1 is extremely limited, as well as on this case's case's case's case's case's case's payment guarantee under the name of the head of the above branch, the non-party 1, the vice-head of the above branch, could have known that he had no authority to do so to the plaintiff. Thus, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damages as 100 million won.
Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is without merit, and the conjunctive claim is dismissed, and the conjunctive claim is justified within the scope of seeking payment of damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum from November 4, 1972 to the full delivery day of the copy that makes up the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and the remainder of the claim is without merit. Thus, since the original judgment has a different conclusion on the copy of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, it is modified, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 199 of the same Act with respect to the provisional execution.
Judges Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)