2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is dismissed.

3. Upon the selective claim added by this court, Defendant Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff 500,000,000 won with 6% per annum from January 6, 2018 to February 22, 2018, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims against defendant Nonghyup Bank are dismissed.

5. The plaintiff and defendant 1 bear their respective costs of litigation. One-third of the total costs of litigation arising between the plaintiff and defendant NongHyup Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the plaintiff, while two-third of the costs of litigation shall be borne by the defendant Nong

6. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 500,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 15, 2011 to the delivery date of the instant complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff added the Plaintiff’s claim for deposit to the selective claim against Defendant Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd.).

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants in its entirety is revoked, and all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants in its revocation part are dismissed.

A. The Plaintiff is an employee of the “non-party 1’s office of a certified judicial scrivener” located in the Gyeongbuk-do ( Address 1 omitted), and the Defendant Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Nonghyup”) is a corporation incorporated on March 2, 2012 by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation under Article 161-11 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act by separating credit business from its credit business under Article 161-11 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act. Defendant 1 was working as the director (Grade V) at the ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “the instant branch”) branch office (hereinafter “the branch office”) of the Defendant Agricultural Cooperatives from February 2010 to February 18, 201. Nonparty 2 was a subordinate-child relationship with the Plaintiff, and was in charge of the affairs, such as the adjustment of civil petitions and cadastral records, from January 17, 1997 to September 9, 2012, from around 201 to around 10, 2012.

B. On February 10, 201, Nonparty 2, while working as a public official in charge of the general civil petition of ○○○○○○ Military and a public official belonging to the Gyeongbuk-gun, was willing to acquire money by forging the relevant documents under the pretext of military maintenance and repair. On February 2, 201, Nonparty 2 issued a resident registration certificate and a certificate of seal from the Plaintiff on the pretext of the necessity of preparing a tender on February 10, 201.

C. On February 10, 201, Nonparty 2: (a) presented the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal imprint to Defendant 1, an assistant director of the instant sub-branch; and (b) opened a deposit account with the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation as the deposit owner (hereinafter “instant deposit”); and (c) received a passbook with the Plaintiff’s seal imprint affixed thereon.

D. In the process of opening the instant deposit account, Defendant 1 did not take measures to verify whether there was a legitimate delegation of the Plaintiff, such as demanding Nonparty 2 to make a proxy in the name of the Plaintiff and a certificate of personal seal impression. Upon Nonparty 2’s request, Defendant 1 additionally stated “(○○ Military)” on the part below the deposit owner of the instant deposit account, and issued the passbook to Nonparty 2.

E. On February 11, 2011, Nonparty 2 copied the transaction drawing and the name of the depositor in the instant deposit passbook from the office located in the ○○ Military Office. Nonparty 2 affixed the official seal of the ○○ Military Office’s civil petition in blank to the blank, affixed it on the transaction drawing column of the said passbook, and copied it, thereby altering the copy of the instant deposit passbook. Nonparty 2 returned to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and the seal imprint used for the opening of the instant deposit, and the instant deposit passbook was kept by himself.

F. On February 13, 2011, Nonparty 2 demanded the Plaintiff to deposit KRW 500 million of the price of the instant land into the instant deposit account, stating that the copy of the deposit passbook altered as above is the corporate account of the ○○ Military Office.

G. On February 14, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for payment from Nonparty 3, an employee, at the ○○ Saemaul Depository, to transfer KRW 500 million to the instant deposit account, stating that “the deposit account holder” is an employee of Nonparty 3. Nonparty 3 explained that “the deposit account holder of the instant deposit account is not ○○ Military, but ○○○ Military, and it is difficult to transfer money on the ground that the one-time transaction of the instant transfer amount is KRW 100 million.” Nonparty 4 prepared five copies of the written request for payment from another person, stating “the deposit account holder,” instead of the Plaintiff, with the consent of the Plaintiff, and then remitted KRW 500 million received from the Plaintiff to the instant deposit account.

H. On February 15, 201, at the instant branch, Nonparty 2: (a) indicated each of the instant deposit account number, amount column, and customer name column in the bank account number column at the time the Plaintiff’s seal impression was affixed at the time of the application for opening the instant deposit account; and (b) presented the instant deposit account to Defendant 1 along with the instant deposit account that he/she had kept. Defendant 1 paid to Nonparty 2 the KRW 350 million check at a face value of KRW 350 million and KRW 150 million check at a face value of KRW 10 million (hereinafter “payment of the instant deposit”).

I. Defendant 1 did not demand or receive the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate, the Plaintiff’s power of attorney, and the certificate of personal seal impression from Nonparty 2 prior to the instant deposit payment.

(j) In the first instance court on March 7, 2013, Nonparty 2 appealed from the criminal judgment [the Daegu District Court's resident support 2012 high-level 102, 2012 high-level 116 (combined), 2013 high-level 6 (combined), hereinafter "relevant criminal case] due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), but the judgment dismissing the appeal on June 20, 2013 (Seoul High Court's 2013No147) became final and conclusive on June 28, 2013, and the criminal facts for which the conviction became final and conclusive were final and conclusive, “Non-Party 2 would cause the Plaintiff to receive the land owned by ○○○-Gun adjacent to the planned area prior to the Gyeong-do Office, thereby inducing the Plaintiff to transfer the KRW 500 million to the deposit account of this case, thereby inducing the Plaintiff to use the said report in the name of each of the said parties.

(k) On February 14, 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 2 and ○○○-gun, asserting that Nonparty 2 is liable for tort damages, employer liability due to the act committed by Nonparty 2, who is a public official belonging to ○○-gun, or liability for damages under the State Compensation Act, and Nonparty 2 and ○○-gun jointly filed a lawsuit claiming payment of KRW 50 million. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance rendered on January 9, 2014, “(150,000,000,000,000,000 won, which is the seald damages, was entirely accepted for the claim against Nonparty 2 against the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 on the ground that it is necessary for Nonparty 2 to provide personnel affairs to the public official belonging to ○○-gun-gun, and that Nonparty 2 was not subject to the State Compensation Act’s act of deception, but is not subject to the State Compensation Act’s act of deception, and thus, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 was not subject to the State Compensation Act’s act of deception.

Other. Meanwhile, around March 2012, Nonparty 2 repaid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100 million, out of KRW 500 million acquired by deception (the fact that there is no dispute).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6-3, 8, 9, 11-1 through 12, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 5, and 6, part of Eul evidence 4-2, 4-4, non-party 5's testimony of the judge of the court, non-party 5's testimony in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against Defendant Agricultural Cooperatives

(a) Whether he/she is liable to pay deposits (esteem);

1) Parties’ assertion

The plaintiff's assertion is that the deposit contract between the plaintiff and the defendant agricultural cooperative was established by depositing KRW 500 million in the deposit account of this case and treating it as the plaintiff's deposit. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the deposit amount of KRW 500 million in accordance with the above deposit contract and damages for delay.

The argument of Defendant No. 3 regarding this is that since the deposit contract was not established between Defendant No. 3 and the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 3 cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for return of deposit.

2) Legal principles

In a case where a remitter enters into a deposit account of an addressee as a result of money transfer pursuant to the basic terms and conditions of deposit transaction, a deposit contract equivalent to the above deposit amount is established between the remitter and the receiving bank, regardless of whether there is a legal relationship between the remitter and the payee, and the receiving bank acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the above deposit amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da66088, May 27, 2010).

Where a creditor seeks the return of a deposit claim against a financial institution as a deposit obligee, he/she shall only assert and prove the fact of the deposit, and prove that the deposit claim has been duly withdrawn and extinguished to be exempted from payment by the debtor financial institution. Even if the deposit account is terminated by a third party or a person without authority, such as an officer and employee of the financial institution, etc., or the deposit account is withdrawn and disposed of in the form of a cancellation or absence of balance, the deposit claim of the deposit obligee still exists without extinguishment of the deposit claim, and thus, the deposit obligee may still seek the return of the deposit claim against the financial institution (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da613, May 27, 2010, etc.).

3) Determination

In light of the following facts and the overall purport of the pleading, it is reasonable to view that, at the time of Nonparty 2’s opening of the instant deposit account, the deposit contract was not established between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nonghyup, but the Plaintiff, when the Plaintiff remitted KRW 500 million to the instant deposit account, the deposit contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nonghyup.

① On February 10, 2011, Nonparty 2, by deceiving the Plaintiff, received resident registration certificates and seal imprints from the Plaintiff, and on February 10, 201, Defendant 1, the director of the branch office of the instant case, presented the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificates and seal imprints, and submitted a transaction application form with the Plaintiff’s seal imprint affixed thereon, and opened the instant deposit account with the Plaintiff as the deposit owner without the Plaintiff’s consent.

② On February 14, 2011, the Plaintiff intended to transfer KRW 500 million to the instant account with the knowledge that the deposit owner of the instant deposit account was “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”, but, upon being aware of the fact that Nonparty 3, an employee of the said community credit cooperative, was the Plaintiff, not ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and knowingly, he wired KRW 500 million to the instant deposit account, and Defendant Agricultural Cooperative handled the said KRW 500 million as the deposit amount for the instant deposit account with the Plaintiff as the deposit owner.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 50 million won per annum under the Commercial Act from January 6, 2018, the day after the date of deposit ( February 14, 201) to the Plaintiff, which was the date of January 4, 2018, on which the Plaintiff’s claim for deposit was served on Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd., until February 22, 2018, which was the date when the judgment of the court was rendered, to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation, as to the existence of the obligation and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day until the date of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant No. Agricultural Co., Ltd. for damages is with merit within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

B. Determination as to Defendant Nonghyup’s assertion of reimbursement (negative)

1) Whether the obligee performs the obligation to his/her agent (unlawfully)

Defendant Nonghyup’s assertion that the deposit contract was established, but Nonparty 2 withdrawn KRW 500 million on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thus the deposit claim’s KRW 500 million was extinguished by repayment.

In light of the above facts, it is not sufficient to recognize that Nonparty 2 had the authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff at the time of withdrawal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, Defendant Agricultural Cooperative’s assertion is without merit, in view of the following facts: (a) it is recognized that Nonparty 2 withdrawn the deposit of this case by entering the Plaintiff’s name in the withdrawal money slip prior to the Plaintiff’s seal imprint; (b) in light of the fact that Nonparty 2 forged the said withdrawal slip under the Plaintiff’s name and the criminal judgment of conviction became final and conclusive.

2) Whether performance has been made to quasi-Possessor of the claim (illegally)

A) Defendant Nonghyup’s assertion

Even if the deposit contract for domestic affairs was established, the deposit payment of this case constitutes a valid repayment to quasi-Possessor of claims pursuant to Article 470 of the Civil Code, and thus, the plaintiff's deposit claim extinguished.

B) the facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the above facts of recognition, Gap evidence 15, Eul evidence 4-5, Eul evidence 4-7, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-4-4, and non-party 5's testimony and the purport of the whole oral argument.

① At the time of the instant deposit payment, Nonparty 2 was not granted the Plaintiff’s right of representation on the instant deposit payment.

② Defendant No. 15 was enacted and implemented at the time of the payment of the instant deposit (hereinafter “Defendant No. 15”) shall be as indicated in the attached Form No. 11 Operating Manual.

According to the defendant's provision of this case, the defendant must conduct financial transactions under the real name verification, and verify the identity of the person concerned by the photograph attached to the real name verification certificate as well as his name and resident registration number verification (Article 1 (1) of Chapter 9 where it is impracticable to identify the person concerned by the photograph of the proposed real name verification certificate) (Article 1 (1) of Chapter 9, Section 1 of Section 1), where the real name verification is continuous transactions by the account verified, it shall be conducted in accordance with general financial practices, and where it is necessary to verify the real name verification, it shall be conducted in accordance with the real name verification (Article 2 (1) 4 of Chapter 9, Section 1, Article 2 (1) of Section 4 of the Act), and where a financial transaction is conducted through the verification of real name verification, the proxy's identity verification certificate and the proxy certificate attached to the person concerned, etc. (Article 12 (3) 1 of Chapter 9, Section 2, Section 3 of Article 2, Section 4 of the Act shall be paid by the head of Article 2 (3).

③ Defendant 1 and Nonparty 2, around 1992, worked together for about one year at the ○○ Military Office as a daily employee. At the time of the instant deposit payment, Defendant 1 was well aware of each other. Defendant 1, when working at the instant branch, was aware of the Plaintiff’s visit frequently to the said branch.

On February 10, 2011, Nonparty 2 opened the instant deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff by presenting the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal imprint to Defendant 1 working as an assistant director of the instant sub-branch, and submitting the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal imprint to the transaction application form.

In the process of opening the instant deposit account, Defendant 1 did not take measures to verify whether there was a legitimate delegation of the Plaintiff, such as demanding Nonparty 2 to make a power of attorney and a certificate of personal seal impression in the name of the Plaintiff. Upon Nonparty 2’s request, Defendant 1 issued a passbook to Nonparty 2, stating “(○○○ Military)” in the deposit account column as follows.

④ On February 14, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 500 million to the instant deposit account from Nonparty 2’s ○○ Saemaul Savings Depository. At the time, the Plaintiff requested Nonparty 3, an employee, to transfer KRW 500 million to the instant deposit account upon submitting a written request for transfer of money (Evidence 1-1-1), stating that “the deposit account holder is not ○○ Military, but ○○○○○○○○○ Community Depository.” Nonparty 3 explained that “The transfer is difficult on the ground that the deposit account holder is the Plaintiff who is not ○○ Military, and the one-time transaction rate of other e-mail is KRW 100 million.” Nonparty 4 prepared five copies (Evidence 1-2 through 6) of the written request for transfer of money in lieu of the Plaintiff’s deposit account, and received KRW 500 million from the Plaintiff to the instant deposit account.”

⑤ At around 12:45 on February 15, 201, Nonparty 2, at the instant sub-branch, entered the Plaintiff’s name in the account number column of the withdrawal slip (Evidence A) on which the Plaintiff’s seal impression was affixed at the time of the application for opening the instant deposit account, and presented to Defendant 1, along with the instant deposit passbook in which he/she kept. Defendant 1 delivered Nonparty 2 a check with a face value of KRW 350 million and a face value of KRW 15 million and a check with a face value of KRW 10 million to Nonparty 2.

6) On the date of the instant deposit payment ( February 15, 201), four employees worked for the instant branch office. At least Grade 4 employees, only Nonparty 5 (Grade 4) was the head office of the branch office, and Defendant 1 (Grade 5) was in charge of counter transaction. Defendant 1, the chief of the branch office of the instant case, paid KRW 500 million to Nonparty 2, without obtaining the said Nonparty 5’s approval and approval. At the time, Defendant 1 did not receive the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate, the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression, and the Plaintiff’s letter of delegation attached to the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression.

C) Legal principles

The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes on this case are as listed in the attached Table 2.

According to the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by Act No. 10522, Mar. 31, 2011; hereinafter “former Act”), agricultural cooperatives and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act constitute “financial institutions” (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (f) of the same Act; and financial institutions’ payment of deposits constitutes “financial transactions” (Article 2 subparagraph 2 and 3 of the same Act); financial institutions shall conduct financial transactions in their real names; and financial institutions shall conduct financial transactions in their real names (Article 3 (1) of the Act; Article 3 (2) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality; financial institutions’ employees who do not engage in financial transactions in their real names (Article 7). According to Article 3 (3) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality; and the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1015, Dec. 15, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule”).

In order to view that a bank employee is obliged to perform occupational duties to verify the identity of the relevant requester or to confirm the intent of the principal of the deposit account by linking the contact details of the relevant requester with a personal identification or by linking the contact details of the computerized deposit account book, etc., a special circumstance should be recognized to suspect that the applicant for the payment of the deposit has no legitimate right to receive the payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da9124, Jan. 24, 2013, etc.).

D) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the relevant statutes and the above facts, pursuant to the provisions of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and the defendant's provision of this case, Defendant 1 must verify the Plaintiff's identity verification certificate and the power of attorney attached with the Plaintiff's identity verification certificate (a seal stamp) before paying the deposit of this case. Although Nonparty 2, who was named as the agent before paying the deposit of this case, was obligated to obtain prior approval from Nonparty 5 (the head of the branch office of this case), he did not receive the Plaintiff's identity verification certificate and the power of attorney attached with the Plaintiff's identity verification certificate (a seal stamp) from Nonparty 2, in violation of this provision, and paid the deposit of this case without obtaining prior approval from Nonparty 5. Thus, solely on the ground that Nonparty 2 opened the deposit account of this case with the Plaintiff's deposit account as the deposit owner, Defendant 1 opened the deposit account on behalf of the Plaintiff who was the deposit owner, and did not have any reason to believe that the Plaintiff was entitled to withdraw the deposit of this case.

① Defendant 1, working in the branch office of the Defendant No. ○○○○○○, was in the state of Nonparty 2, at the time of opening the instant deposit account, and at the time of paying the instant deposit to Nonparty 2, both the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2.

② Although the Defendant’s provision is an internal provision of the Nonghyup, it is prescribed for the purpose of preventing damage to the account holder with due care at the time of payment of deposits. Thus, the Defendant’s provision can be the standard for determining the scope and degree of the Defendant’s duty of care to the account holder.

According to the defendant's provision of this case, defendant 1 shall conduct financial transactions under the real name, carry out a real name verification certificate, such as resident registration certificate of deposit certificates (Article 1 (1) of Chapter 9), and conduct a transaction in accordance with general financial practices if the real name verification is continued by the account confirmed under the real name verification (Article 1 (1) of Chapter 1 of Chapter 9), and if it is necessary to conduct a financial transaction through the real name verification, the real name verification shall be confirmed (Article 2 (1) 4 of Chapter 1 of Chapter 9), and when the agent conducts a financial transaction through the agent's real name verification certificate and his/her certificate of personal seal impression shall be presented and confirmed (Article 2 (3) 1 of Chapter 9, Section 1 of Chapter 2 of Article 2), at the time of deposit payment, the amount requested is too high or doubtful, and the amount paid for each case shall be paid at least 20 million won (Article 2 (3) 4 of Chapter 2 of Chapter 3, Section 2 of Article 2).

(3) In full view of the following facts, it is reasonable to deem that the deposit payment of this case constitutes “where a financial transaction is conducted through an agent” (Article 2(3)1 of Chapter 9 of the Defendant’s Regulation) and “where a real name verification is required” (Article 2(1)4 of Chapter 9 of the Defendant’s Regulation). As such, Defendant 1 must verify the Plaintiff’s real name verification certificate as the deposit owner and the power of attorney accompanied by the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression (Article 2(3)1 of Chapter 9 of the Defendant’s Regulation) by presenting the certificate of real name verification as the deposit owner and the power of attorney accompanied by the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression (Article 2(3)1 of the Defendant’s Regulation). The deposit payment of this case must be made after obtaining approval from Nonparty 5, the head of the business of the branch office of this case (Article 2(1) and (2) of Chapter 3 of the Defendant’s Regulation).

According to the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 2, subparag. 3, Article 3(1), (2), and (3) of the former Act and Article 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions, a financial institution shall, in paying deposits, verify the real name based on the deposit certificates if the deposit owner is an individual. However, in exceptional cases, in the case of a "recurring transaction by an account in which name has been verified", the real name may not be verified. Thus, even if continuous transactions by an account in which name has been verified, the financial institution is obligated to verify the real name.

(C) There is no dispute between the parties that the payment of the instant deposit constitutes “when making a financial transaction through an agent.”

Along with the fact that the instant deposit account was opened on February 10, 201, and the Plaintiff remitted KRW 500 million to the instant deposit account on February 14, 2011, and the instant deposit payment was made on February 15, 2011, the instant deposit payment constitutes “where the instant deposit payment is made in a continuous transaction by an account verified by name” (Article 2(1)4 of Chapter 9 of the instant Defendant Regulations), but falls under “where the claim amount is excessive or doubtful in light of the ordinary transaction status” (Article 1(1)4 (g) of Chapter 3 of the instant Defendant Regulations).

Since the amount of deposit of this case is KRW 500 million, it constitutes “when paying a large amount of deposit exceeding KRW 100 million per case” (Article 2(1) of Chapter 3 of the Defendant’s Regulation).

The head of the branch office of this case shall be the non-party 5 (the non-party 5's testimony of the witness of the party branch), and the head of the team team and the non-party 5, who is the head of the branch office of this case, shall obtain prior approval when paying 100 million won or more (Article 2 (1) and (2) of Chapter 3 of the defendant's Regulation).

④ However, before paying the instant deposit, Defendant 1 did not receive the Plaintiff’s real name verification certificate and the power of attorney attached with the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression (a seal stamp) from Nonparty 2, who is named as the agent, as the agent. At the same time, Defendant 1 did not obtain prior approval from Nonparty 5, who is the head of the instant branch office, as the head of the instant branch office.

C. Determination as to Defendant Nonghyup’s assertion on the expiration of the statute of limitations (unlawful)

1) Defendant Nonghyup’s assertion

Even if the Plaintiff claimed to deposit claims, the above deposit claims occurred on February 14, 2011, and five years have passed since the expiration date of commercial extinctive prescription, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the above deposit claims by delivery of a preparatory document as of January 4, 2018. Thus, the Plaintiff’s deposit claims have already become extinct after the expiration of extinctive prescription.

2) Determination

According to Article 5(2) of the Commercial Act, a company shall be deemed a merchant even if it does not engage in commercial activities. According to Article 47 of the Commercial Act, an act performed by a merchant for business purposes shall be deemed a commercial activity (paragraph (1)), and an act performed by a merchant for business purposes (Paragraph (2)).

A claim arising from not only a claim arising from an act that has been engaged in a commercial activity but also a claim arising from an act that constitutes a commercial activity is subject to the extinctive prescription period of five years as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Such a commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act, but also the ancillary commercial activity that a merchant performs for a business (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da91251, Apr. 10, 2008, etc.). Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall apply or apply mutatis mutandis to not only a claim arising from a commercial activity but also a claim corresponding thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da210811, Sept. 15, 2015, etc.).

In full view of the fact that Defendant Nonghyup Co., Ltd. is a merchant, and that Defendant Nonghyup Co., Ltd.’s act of returning deposits to the Plaintiff was a commercial activity for Defendant Nonghyup’s business, the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against Defendant Nonghyup is a commercial claim and the period of extinctive prescription is five years.

In the absence of an agreement on the time to return a contract for consumption deposit, the bailor may claim the return of the contract at any time (Article 702 of the Civil Act). As such, the starting date of the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim shall be February 14, 201, which is the date of deposit. However, since it is apparent in the record that the legal brief dated January 4, 2018, for which the Plaintiff sought the payment of the deposit claim, was served to Defendant Nonghyup on January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff’s deposit claim shall be deemed to have expired and terminated after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, on the other hand, since the extinctive prescription was suspended as seen below, the Plaintiff’s claim by Defendant

The Plaintiff’s assertion on this point is that the extinctive prescription is interrupted at the time the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case. The extinctive prescription is interrupted by a judicial claim (Article 168 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act). In a case where a judicial claim as a cause of interruption of extinctive prescription not only requests the performance of a right itself, but also requests for performance or confirmation as to the fundamental legal relationship that has arisen from the right, in a case where a claim for performance or confirmation of the fundamental legal relationship can be a means for the realization of the rights arising therefrom, and thus, it can be deemed that the claim for performance or confirmation of the fundamental legal relationship is not a locked person on the right, the claim for performance or confirmation as to the basic legal relationship also includes a judicial claim as a cause of interruption of extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da13435, Jun. 30, 1995). In a case where a claim for performance or confirmation of the right itself is filed in relation to the interruption of extinctive prescription, or where a subsequent claim is based on or its right.

On April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff stated a complaint on the date of pleading on June 26, 2014 of the first instance trial, and the cause for the Plaintiff’s claim for damages as alleged by the Plaintiff was that “Defendant 1 paid the deposit amount of KRW 500 million deposited by the Plaintiff to Nonparty 2, who referred to as the Plaintiff’s agent, without obtaining approval from the head of the branch office, in violation of the business process regulations of Defendant Agricultural Cooperative, thereby incurring damages equivalent to KRW 500 million.” This court clearly expressed in this court that the above claim is intended to realize the Plaintiff’s right to KRW 500 million deposited in the instant deposit account. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim shall be deemed to have been interrupted when the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages due to the deposit payment at the first instance trial.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim was interrupted by a judicial claim on April 16, 201, which was filed within five years from the initial date of the extinctive prescription ( February 14, 201) and thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation of interruption of the extinctive prescription is reasonable, and the Defendant’s allegation of expiration

D. Determination on Defendant Nonghyup’s assertion of the method of attack and defense (unlawfully)

The allegation by Defendant No. 3 is that the Plaintiff’s assertion of the obligation to deposit against Defendant No. 3 on the date of pleading on January 12, 2018 after the judgment on the reversal and return of the instant case was rendered, is a means of attack and defense against the actual time limit.

The court may dismiss the method of offence or defense which has been submitted late at the time of the party's intention or gross negligence when it is deemed that such offence or defense will be delayed due to the delay of the conclusion of the lawsuit. This is not only in the form of an independent decision, but also in the form of an independent decision, which may be determined by the method of a judgment among the reasons for the judgment. However, even if the method of offence or defense is a means of attack or defense, if the continuation of the date is required, and the deliberation of the method of offence or defense may be completed within the scope of the continuance date, or if such contents are already included in the scope of the litigation materials which have already completed the trial, it shall not be deemed that delay of the completion of the lawsuit is not possible (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da

The plaintiff added a claim for deposit at the trial on January 4, 2018 to the court of first instance. However, the plaintiff made a statement at the date of pleading on June 26, 2014 and caused damage to the plaintiff's deposit by paying 500 million won to the non-party 2 without obtaining approval from the head of the branch office. Thus, the defendant agricultural cooperative asserted that the plaintiff was liable for damages equivalent to 500 million won to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant agricultural cooperative stated the written response from June 26, 2014 to the court of first instance on June 3, 2014, the non-party 2 requested deposit in the name of the plaintiff after entering into a deposit contract in the name of the plaintiff with the defendant agricultural cooperative, and the defendant agricultural cooperative was believed to be the plaintiff's agent and paid the deposit to the non-party 2, and the plaintiff's claim for additional deposit at the court of first instance as a result of the plaintiff's allegation that the deposit was extinguished in the court of first instance as to the plaintiff's deposit account.

E. Omission of judgment on the claim for damages

The Plaintiff’s assertion was due to Defendant 1, a staff member in charge of the opening of the Plaintiff’s account in violation of his duty of care, who opened the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff and delivered the instant deposit passbook to Nonparty 2. As a result, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 500 million in the instant deposit account in the name of the purchase price of the instant land, thereby causing damage to Nonparty 2 by withdrawing KRW 500 million from the instant deposit account using the instant deposit passbook following the Plaintiff’s death. As such, Defendant Nonghyup was jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said damage with Defendant 1, a direct tortfeasor as Defendant 1’s employer.

In a case where several claims are selectively joined from the beginning in the first instance court, and the defendant filed an appeal, and the judgment accepting one of them is sentenced to the acceptance of a claim, as well as in a case where the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment that accepted the plaintiff's claim, and thereafter the claim has been transferred to the appellate court, even in a case where the claim is selectively joined, the appellate court does not need to first examine and determine the claim cited in the first instance court. The appellate court may select and judge at will the claim which is not tried in the first instance among several claims selectedly joined as the court below did. However, even if it is recognized as reasonable as a result of the examination and the conclusion is the same as the disposition of the first instance court, the defendant's appeal shall not be dismissed, and the judgment accepting a new claim shall be pronounced after the revocation of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da7587, 759

As seen earlier, as long as most of the Plaintiff’s claim for deposit is accepted (part of delay damages), it is not necessary to separately determine the claim for damages arising from selective relation with the deposit claim. Thus, the judgment is omitted.

3. Claim against Defendant 1

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1, as a staff member in charge of the opening of the instant deposit account, was negligent in opening the Plaintiff’s deposit account under the Plaintiff’s name without having received the Plaintiff’s proxy and certificate of personal seal in violation of his duty of care, and issuing the instant deposit account to Nonparty 2. As a result, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 500 million in the instant deposit account under the name of the purchase price of the instant land, thereby Nonparty 2 suffered damages from withdrawing KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff using the instant deposit account following Plaintiff’s death. Accordingly, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate the Plaintiff as a tort.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, it is recognized that Nonparty 2 deposited KRW 500 million in the instant deposit account was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s future, but the Plaintiff still has the deposit claim of KRW 500 million against Defendant Nonghyup, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have suffered losses due to the extinguishment of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages is without merit without examining any further.

4. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1 is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. Since the part against Defendant 1 among the judgment of the court of first instance regarding Defendant 1 is unfair on the contrary, Defendant 1’s appeal is accepted, and the part against Defendant 1 among the judgment of the court of first instance regarding Defendant 1 is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1

Of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant No. 3, the claim for additional deposit is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the Defendant No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the acceptance of the claim for damages) shall be revoked, and the part concerning the principal of the claim for deposit, which was added in the trial, shall be accepted in whole, and the part concerning delay damages

[Attachment]

Judges Jin Sung-chul (Presiding Judge) Criteria