2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts can be acknowledged by combining the following facts: Gap's evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5 (as stated above, 2) and Eul's evidence 1 to 6, Eul's witness 1 to 6, **'s testimony, witness Kim* part of *'s testimony, and inquiry results to the head of this court's Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, the whole purport of the arguments.

A. On September 13, 2005, the Plaintiff received a proposal to pay KRW 260,00,00,00 in addition to the fee of KRW 10,00,00 on the following day, if the Plaintiff deposits KRW 250,00,00 in the account of Nonparty ** * for a day only. It was proposed that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 260,00,000 in the morning.

B. At the time, the above non-party could withdraw the cashier's checks issued to the plaintiff when the cashier's checks are deposited to the bank at 3 p.m. on the following day, so if the above money is not paid during the A.m., it would not incur any loss if the check is returned after the collection and settlement of the exchange office at 3 p.m. on the following day. The defendant bank ** the non-party's right that was a branch head of the branch * confirmed it to the plaintiff with the above non-party * the non-party * the non-party's right that was a branch * the non-party * the above non-party * confirmed it to the plaintiff. (However, if it is recognized that there is no risk of an accident" under the proviso of Article 21 of the 'the Deposit Business Guidelines', it can be paid after the settlement by the person with the discretionary power (hereinafter referred to as the "proviso'). Accordingly, the corresponding provision can be paid even before the next day

C. Accordingly, at around 00, the Plaintiff issued one cashier's check at KRW 250,00, and KRW 00 (the check number*******; hereinafter referred to as "the cashier's check of this case") on the same day, and deposited the above cashier's check with Defendant ** (Account number********************) on the Defendant's account book, and issued a receipt for cash custody of KRW 250,00, and KRW 00 under his own name.

D. Since the above Nonparty did not pay KRW 260,00,000 as the promise, the Plaintiff intended to suspend the payment of the above cashier’s check, but the above cashier’s check amount was withdrawn from Defendant 00 points pursuant to the above proviso of the deposit day.

E. Upon the plaintiff's protested against September 15, 2005 ** Eul, the right* * signed a letter of confirmation that the plaintiff would pay the above 250,00,000 won to the plaintiff up to September 30, 2005.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Determination as to the assertion of contractual liability

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable for paying the above amount of money and damages for delay, since the plaintiff agreed on behalf of the defendant * that the amount of 250,000,000 won will be refunded to the plaintiff by September 14, 2005 on behalf of the defendant .

The evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of each evidence. According to the evidence No. 5, the right* this right* this right? The Bank of Korea** from the original high level to September 14, 2005, although it was decided to return gold 250,000,000 won from the original high level to September 14, 2005, the fact that the confirmation was signed on the confirmation letter stating "the promise to return by September 30, 2005 due to the due event, it is recognized that the above confirmation was written in blank, and on the other hand, it is not a document in front of the defendant's given form, but rather a document in front of the defendant's name * the right to display a person's name * there is no intention to affix the defendant's deputy head or the defendant's official seal * there is no intention to affix the above confirmation letter * the above documents *.

It is difficult to see that the defendant agreed to return the above money, and there is no other evidence to see that the defendant agreed to return the money, and the above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of employer liability

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff notified the plaintiff on September 13, 2005 that "if the plaintiff deposits a cashier's check at the time of deposit of his own check of this case with the defendant's employee ** and the plaintiff on September 13, 2005, the amount of such deposit can be found after 3 p.m. on the following day." In exceptional cases, although the plaintiff was obligated to notify the plaintiff that the amount of deposit can be paid even before the next day of the deposit under the proviso, he did not notify the plaintiff intentionally or by negligence, he did not notify the plaintiff that he would be entitled to receive the deposit, thereby causing damage to the amount of the above money by reporting the above cashier's check of this case to be recovered. The defendant *** the right and the maximum*** the employer's duty to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as the plaintiff.

(2) Non-party * Whether the employer's liability against non-party * is established

The fact that the plaintiff et al. did not notify the person who requested the deposit of the above cashier's checks at the time of the request is not a dispute between the parties, but in light of the exception of the above proviso, the bank employees are not allowed to ask whether the person who requested the deposit of a check would have no way to search the money on the same day or not to withdraw the money at least three p.m. on the following day. Unless there are special circumstances, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff et al. is obligated to notify the above proviso at any time, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff et al. made a special inquiry as above ***** as at the time of the deposit. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above fact of the above recognition alone alone *** is illegal.

(3) Rights* Whether employer liability against *

** The above participation in the non-party ***, **, the plaintiff believed that the plaintiff could not be withdrawn before 3 p.m. on the following day and confirmed that the plaintiff could not be withdrawn before 3 p.m. on the following day without notifying the plaintiff of the above proviso, and then the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the face value of the above cashier's checks by allowing the plaintiff to deposit the above cashier's checks. As such, the right *** the above proviso's non-disclosure and probability of the above proviso's act constitutes a tort, and further, the act of execution of affairs which an employee causes damages to a third party in the employer's responsibility includes cases where it appears that it is similar to or related to the employer's business activity or execution of affairs, and the plaintiff's act of execution of affairs is not related to the defendant's duty, * the defendant's act of execution of affairs * the defendant's duty of compensation for damages suffered by a third party due to the above act of execution of affairs * the defendant's duty of execution of the cashier's duty.

(4) Judgment on the defendant's defense

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant is not liable for damages because the plaintiff knew or was not aware of the fact that the above check was not a legitimate official duty at the time of deposit of the cashier's checks of this case* because the plaintiff knew or was grossly negligent.

According to the above facts, it can be acknowledged that the act of not notifying and confirming the proviso * was accompanied by the act of private financing brokerage outside the scope of the bank's business, and the content of the private financing was an abnormal high-ranking transaction. However, the right ** the defendant's general office staff, who is not a general office staff member of the bank, provided guidance on the withdrawal of checks, which is the ordinary business of the bank, and the plaintiff believed that it was caused to deposit the checks. In light of the fact that the above facts alone, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff knew, or was unable to know, due to gross negligence that the act of explaining the above defendant's cashier's checks does not fall under the scope of the defendant's business, ** the above facts alone, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff knew, or was unable to know, due to gross negligence, that it was not within the scope of the defendant's business execution, and there is no evidence to

(5) Limitation of liability

However, according to the above facts of recognition, the above act of offering cash custody and receipt with the name of the Vice-Chairperson is not actually included in the scope of the bank. Since the plaintiff's act of offering the above private financing brokerage and the cash storage that guarantee the payment of private financing obligations does not fall under the scope of the bank, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's act of offering the above non-party 5's private financing brokerage and the above act of offering the above non-party 5's private financing brokerage and the above act of offering the above non-party 250,000,000 won as a day-to-day loan of 1,460% per annum, which is equivalent to the above 10,000 won per annum, and that the above act of offering the above non-party 5's private financing brokerage and the above act of offering the above non-party 5's non-party 1's own fault did not constitute the defendant's normal act of lending * the above non-party 1's own fault's duty of paying damages.

(6) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 125,00,000 won with the face value of 50% of the above cashier's checks, and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from September 14, 2005 to May 29, 2008, which is the date of the decision of this case that is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist as requested by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.