[2] Whether the fact-finding and the determination of ratio of the grounds for comparative negligence are matters of full power of the fact-finding court (affirmative)

[2] The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

The defendant-appellant's ground of appeal No. 1 and defendant-appellant No. 1 and No. 2 are examined as to the defendant-appellant's ground of appeal No. 1 and No. 2

A. According to the records, the non-party, who is an employee of the plaintiff, refers to the employees of the non-party cement Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party Co., Ltd.") at the implied branch of the defendant bank, and opened the bank account in the name of the non-party Co., Ltd., the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party Co., Ltd."). The non-party Co., Ltd. established the bank account of this case. The non-party Co., Ltd.'s request for subsidies for mining damage prevention and deposit request which the non-party Co., Ltd. already submitted to the plaintiff was replaced by the account number of the non-party Co., Ltd.'s bank account of this case. The non-party Co., Ltd. deposited KRW 250 million in the above account with the non-party Co., Ltd.'s account at its own expense. The non-party Co., Ltd.'s employee Co., Ltd. did not arbitrarily withdraw the bank's name or deposit certificate of the non-party Co.

B. It is like a theory that it cannot be deemed that a bank transaction party has the duty to investigate and confirm whether it is a real right holder of the relevant financial assets. However, if a financial institution does not fully omit the proxy and a certificate of personal seal impression in the process of opening a deposit account with a person who is his/her own agent, it can be easily predicted that a crime of acquiring money by means of receiving money from a third party through a arbitrarily opened bank account without gathering another person's name can be committed. Even if a financial institution takes such minimum measure as above, it can remove a considerable amount of such potential risk, and if a financial institution does not have any entity performing the above role other than opening a deposit account, it can be said that a financial institution has the duty of care not to assist the illegal act of another party by preventing it from using the possibility of using it in criminal acts against many unspecified potential victims. However, if the financial institution fails to take such measures at all, and causes losses to a third party to the illegal account by taking advantage of the duty of due diligence between the third party and the money deposited in the real name verification account.

C. Examining the judgment below in light of the records in light of the above legal principles, the employee in charge of the defendant bank opened a bank account without taking all the measures as seen above, and eventually, the court below is justified in recognizing the defendant's liability for damages, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to negligence, illegality, causation, and joint tort liability for aiding and abetting by negligence in the establishment of tort, or incomplete deliberation. Each of the above grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the ground of appeal on damages

The defendant-appellant's ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

As the court below duly admitted, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal purporting that since the subsidy-related funds received by the plaintiff from the government are incorporated into the plaintiff's general budget and reverted to the plaintiff, the victim of the tort in this case shall be deemed the plaintiff, and therefore, the non-resident shall be deemed

In addition, in light of the records, the judgment of the court below that rejected the non-party company's assertion on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion that the non-party company waivers the right to the subsidy of this case on the ground that the non-party company was suffering from the plaintiff's distress after the tort of this case and the public officials belonging to the plaintiff would be subject to reprimand as the defendant's assertion, but even if the non-party company renounced the right to the subsidy of this case, it is only the actual effect of compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiff at his own expense, and it cannot be a circumstance that can decide whether to cause damage. Thus, it is difficult to accept the argument in the grounds of appeal that

3. As to the ground of appeal on employer’s responsibility

Defendant 3’s assertion in the grounds of appeal No. 3 as to Defendant 2’s attorney Park Byung-hun and Han-hun was asserted only in the final appeal, and it is apparent that the appeal was not made in the original instance. Thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal as to the lower judgment. In addition, in cases where an employee’s tort falls within the scope of administrative work execution, it is deemed that the employee’s tort falls within the scope of administrative work execution, and the victim himself or herself cannot be held liable if he knew that the employee’s act does not fall within the scope of administrative work execution in lieu of the employer or the supervisor. However, it is obvious that the establishment of the above deposit account in the name of the Nonparty constitutes an act of execution in the duties of the employee of the Defendant bank’s implied branch office. Thus, the above ground of appeal on the premise that the above employee’s act

4. As to the ground of appeal on offsetting negligence

The defendant-appellant's ground of appeal No. 3 and the defendant-appellant's ground of appeal No. 4 as to the defendant-appellant's ground of appeal No. 3

The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in tort damages cases is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da62251, 6268, Jan. 8, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, the above non-party is the plaintiff's employee who intentionally acquired the subsidy of this case, and the employee of the defendant bank took part in the above damages due to negligence in opening the deposit account. Thus, in relation to the defendant bank, the plaintiff must assume certain parts of the damage of this case as the employer of the above non-party on the ground that it conforms to the principle of fair distribution of damages, and thus, the court below's determination of the court below which limits the liability of the defendant bank to the plaintiff for the damages of this case on the ground that the ratio of comparative negligence of the court below's approval of the court below is considerably unreasonable or low in light of the principle of equity.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Kang-tae (Presiding Justice)