(b) The case recognizing an employer's liability for the illegal acts committed by the head of the deposit office;

(b) The head of the deposit office of a local bank shall compensate for damages caused by the illegal acts of the head of the deposit office who is an employee of the bank, because it appears to be the business of the bank and is closely related to its original business.

Each cost of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively.

(1) As discussed in the argument of the court below, the non-party 35,00,00 won per four face value of the check at issue in this case shall be guaranteed by the defendant bank No. 1 branch of the defendant bank and the authority limit of the head of the above deposit office shall be explained, and even if the non-party 1's act was believed to be the normal business of the defendant bank, it cannot be the expression representative by the so-called authority month. Thus, the court below's explanation that the defendant bank cannot enforce its responsibility as the principal.

It is an example that the head of the deposit office of a local bank guarantees the payment of an individual's checks with a large face value using his qualification. Therefore, it is unreasonable that the Plaintiff believed that the Plaintiff is a person outside of the national school as stated in the discussion.

Furthermore, if the plaintiff, at the place of transferring the corresponding interest to it, has engaged in another business as his agent, he would have to ask the non-party 1 to the branch office or head office whether he has the authority to guarantee the payment of large amount of personal checks.

In the absence of such a measure for self-defense, the plaintiff is believed to have the power of representation, and therefore there is no negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss the same purport of the judgment of the court below, and it is not deemed that there is an error of law that failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

(2) In determining the amount of damages, the court below is reasonable in light of the judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 that there was negligence on the part of the victim in determining the defendant's liability as the employer and the amount of damages, and there is no argument that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the limit of liability or incomplete hearing.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

The court below determined that the payment guarantee of the non-party, who was the head of the South-North Korea deposit office of the defendant bank, in accordance with the evidence accepted by the court below, could be seen as the work of the defendant bank, and that it was closely related to the original work of the defendant bank. Thus, the defendant bank should be held liable for damages caused by the non-party's illegal act as an employer as an employee, in light of the records.

As stated in the reasoning of the court below, the court below rejected part of the testimony of the non-party and the result of the party's examination in the above fact-finding, but it does not consider it as evidence determination beyond the power of the fact-finding court, and even if the authority of the non-party is limited as stated in the above argument, such circumstance is merely an internal relationship with the non-party, and thus, it cannot be exempted from liability as an employer because the plaintiff, a third party, believed the appearance of the non-party.

In addition, there is no misapprehension of legal principles as to the payment guarantee of due diligence or check in the original judgment.

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

Justices Yang Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)