The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 80,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from March 17, 2011 to November 21, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the total litigation costs, including the appeal costs, shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

In the first place, Defendant Nonghyup Bank shall pay to the Plaintiff 20 million won with 5% interest per annum from March 17, 2011 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. In the second place, the Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 20 million won with 5% interest per annum from March 17, 201 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the Plaintiff changed its claim in exchange for exchange).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 200,000,000 won with the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from March 17, 201 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. Opening of a deposit account in the name of Nonparty 1

(1) On March 16, 201, the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to open, enter, and withdraw a deposit account in the name of Nonparty 1. On March 16, 201, the Plaintiff opened a deposit account in the name of Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “instant deposit account”) at the street dong branch of Defendant Agricultural Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Agricultural Bank”). On March 16, 201, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 400 million in the instant deposit account and issued a certificate of deposit balance (Evidence 3).

(2) After that, the Defendant, who was aware that the Plaintiff would withdraw the above KRW 400 million from Defendant 2 on the following day, was entitled to withdraw the money from the Plaintiff’s account on behalf of the Plaintiff and deposit it into the Plaintiff’s account on behalf of the Plaintiff, and received from the Plaintiff a deposit passbook in the name of Nonparty 1, a deposit slip in the name of Nonparty 1 (Evidence 4) and a deposit slip in the name of the Plaintiff, stating the password established by the Plaintiff when opening the instant deposit account.

(b) Request for suspension of payment and receipt of deposits by the plaintiff;

(1) Defendant 2 attempted to withdraw KRW 400 million from the instant deposit account as agreed with the Plaintiff on March 17, 2011, as of March 17, 201, but failed to comply with the Plaintiff’s secret number written by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was informed of such fact by telephone. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested Defendant 2 to suspend payment on the instant deposit account, stating that “the secret number was properly stated, but any error was the same.” However, the Defendant requested Defendant 2 to suspend payment on the ground that the instant deposit account was in the name of Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s request for suspension of payment cannot be taken on the sole basis of the Plaintiff’s request, and that it was necessary to ascertain the truth about the occurrence of a secret entry error.

(2) Around 08:43:22 on the same day, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant 2 to suspend payment on the instant deposit account by phone call, and then transferred KRW 100 million from the instant deposit account to the national bank account (Account No. 2 omitted) with Nonparty 2’s account by means of the Internet banking. On the same day, around 08:4:27 on the same day, KRW 100 million was transferred to the Industrial Bank of Korea (Account No. 3 omitted) in the name of Nonparty 3. Accordingly, around 08:44:51 on the same day, Defendant 2 registered the instant savings account in order to prevent the transfer of KRW 19,99,000 (charges No. 1,000) remaining in the instant deposit account.

(3) At around 08:50 on the same day, the Plaintiff found Defendant 2 to have known that KRW 200 million was out of the instant deposit account, and requested Defendant 2 to suspend payment of each of the above accounts in the name of Nonparty 2 and 3 to the National Bank and the Industrial Bank of Korea as it was used in the crime. Accordingly, Defendant 2 refused the above request for suspension of payment on the ground that the above transfer of KRW 200 million does not constitute an occurrence of a financial accident that may require another financial institution to suspend payment. At around 09:28 on the same day, Defendant 2 attempted to request the National Bank to suspend payment by calls to the Industrial Bank of Korea at around 09:29,09, and the Industrial Bank of Korea at around 09:07 on the same day, but at around 09:07 on the same day, it was confirmed that all KRW 100 million were withdrawn.

(4) Meanwhile, on March 21, 2011, the Plaintiff became aware of Nonparty 1’s password through Nonparty 4, and received a refund of KRW 199,99,000 remaining after deducting the fee incurred in the above transfer process from the Defendant.

C. Relevant provisions

Relevant provisions, such as the basic terms and conditions of deposit transactions in the defendant Agricultural Bank shall be as specified in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 10-2, Eul evidence Nos. 10-2, non-party 5 and 6's testimony of the witness of the party, non-party 5 and 6's testimony of the party, the result of the party's personal examination of the plaintiff and defendant 2, the result of the party's on-site inspection,

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

In the instant deposit transaction, there was a clear agreement between Defendant Nonghyup Bank and the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would vest in the right to claim the return of the instant deposit, and thus, the parties to the instant deposit transaction are the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant Nonghyup Bank is obligated to refund KRW 200,000,000, which was not yet returned to the Plaintiff out of the instant deposit, and delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination

In the event that a deposit contract is concluded through a real name verification procedure under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the fact of the contract is clearly indicated in the real name verification statement, etc., it is reasonable to interpret that the deposit title holder, an actor acting for him, and an intent of a financial institution in the deposit contract is to regard the deposit title holder as the party to the deposit contract in accordance with experience rules, and it is reasonable to clarify the legal relationship as to the party to the deposit contract. In order to regard the contributor, etc. who is not the deposit title holder as the party to the deposit contract as the party to the deposit contract, the right to claim the return of the deposit title holder shall be excluded, and the right to claim the return of the deposit shall be limited to extremely exceptional cases where there is a clear agreement with the fund contributor, etc. to recognize the probative value of the deposit contract, etc. prepared through a real name verification procedure under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (Supreme Court en banc Decision 208Da4588, Mar. 28, 2009).

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence 8-3 to 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2:

① On March 16, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with Nonparty 1 to lend money of KRW 400 million to Nonparty 1; (3) obtained a certificate of loan (Evidence 5) from Nonparty 1; (4) personal credit information (Evidence 8-7); and (8) a letter of delegation of banking business (Evidence 8-8); and (2) the Plaintiff’s application for the opening of the bank account in the name of Nonparty 1 to the effect that the Plaintiff would have received the balance of the deposit account under the name of Nonparty 1’s proxy deposit account (Evidence 8-9); and (4) the Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of the balance of the deposit account under the name of Nonparty 1’s own account to the effect that the Plaintiff would have received the balance of the deposit account under the name of Nonparty 1’s proxy account (Evidence 1); and (3) there was no evidence to acknowledge that the balance of the deposit account would have been issued under the name of Nonparty 1’s proxy deposit account.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim based on the premise that the deposit owner is the plaintiff is without merit.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff opened a deposit account in the name of Nonparty 1 as the agent of Nonparty 1 for the purpose of obtaining the certificate of deposit balance in the name of Nonparty 1, and paid KRW 400 million to Defendant 2, immediately following the following day, requested Defendant 2 to withdraw KRW 400 million from the deposit account of this case and deposit to the deposit account he designates, and Defendant 2 accepted the request. As such, Defendant 2 transferred KRW 400 million deposited in the deposit account of this case to the Plaintiff’s designated deposit account by Defendant 2, and if the said deposit is transferred to a third party against the Plaintiff’s will, Defendant 2 did not implement the suspension of payment immediately.

(2) In addition, since the Plaintiff informed Defendant 2 of the occurrence of a crime regarding the instant deposit account pursuant to Article 14 of the General Terms and Conditions on Deposit Transactions of the Defendant Agricultural Bank, and requested suspension of payment, Defendant 2 took the measure of suspending payment of the instant deposit account without delay pursuant to the joint agreement, etc. for the prevention of financial accidents. Although Defendant 2 was obligated to request suspension of payment of each of the instant deposit accounts from the instant deposit account, Defendant 2 failed to take a measure of suspending payment immediately, and neglected to perform the obligation by failing to take a measure of suspending payment.

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered loss of KRW 200 million. Defendant 2 as a tort, and Defendant Nonghyup Bank as an employer of Defendant 2, respectively, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said loss.

B. Determination

(1) 원고는 소외 1로부터 예금계좌개설에 관하여 대리권한을 수여받아 피고 2에게 소외 1 명의의 계좌를 개설하여 줄 것을 요청하였고, 피고 2가 소외 1 명의의 예금계좌를 개설하는데 필요한 모든 서류가 구비되었다고 판단한 후 이 사건 예금계좌를 개설하여 준 사실, 원고가 이 사건 예금계좌에 4억 원을 입금한 후 이 사건 예금계좌의 잔액이 4억 원에 이르는 사실을 증명하여 달라는 예금잔액증명서의 발급을 요청하였고 피고 농협은행은 원고에게 소외 1 명의로 예금잔액증명서를 발급하여 준 사실, 원고는 피고 2에게 다음날 이 사건 예금계좌에서 위 4억 원을 인출해달라며 소외 1 명의의 출금전표와 이 사건 예금계좌의 통장을 교부하면서 이에 대한 업무처리를 부탁하였고 피고 2가 이를 수락한 사실, 피고 2는 다음날 이 사건 예금계좌에서 위 4억 원을 인출하려고 시도하였으나 비밀번호 오류로 이를 인출하지 못한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 여기에 ① 피고 2가 원고의 요청에 따라 다음날 영업개시와 동시에 이 사건 예금계좌에 입금한 4억 원을 원고가 지정하는 예금계좌에 이체하는 업무를 처리하기로 한 것은 원고가 예금잔액증명서를 발급받은 다음 이 사건 예금계좌에 4억 원을 예탁하여 둘 이유가 없고, 혹시 소외 1 명의의 예금에 대한 가압류 등이 집행되거나 지급정지 등이 이루어짐으로써 예금을 회수하는데 문제가 발생하는 것을 피하기 위한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 피고 2가 위와 같은 사정을 충분히 인식하고 있었던 이상, 원고가 알려준 비밀번호가 이 사건 예금계좌의 비밀번호와 일치하지 않을 뿐만 아니라 원고의 의사에 반하여 이 사건 예금계좌에서 2억 원이 제3자에게 이체되는 것을 확인하였다면, 즉시 이 사건 예금계좌에 대한 지급정지를 등록하고, 금원이 이체된 계좌에 대해서는 지급정지를 요청하는 등의 조치를 취함이 타당한 점, ③ 나아가 이 사건 예금계좌에 예금되어 있던 4억 원 전부에 대한 계좌이체가 이루어질 가능성이 있었으므로, 피고 2로서는 이를 금융사고 예방을 위한 공동협약 시행세칙 제3조 제2항에 규정된 금융사고로 보아 중소기업은행 등에 지급정지요청을 하여야 했던 점(만약 위 시행세칙의 규정이 실제로 피해를 입은 금액이 3억 원에 이를 때까지를 기다려야 비로소 지급정지요청을 할 수 있다는 취지라면, 금융사고 발생과 피해를 최소화한다는 당초의 목적을 달성할 수 없게 됨이 분명하므로, 예상 피해금액이 3억 원을 초과할 것인지의 여부는 금융사고가 발생한 예금계좌에 당초 입금되어 있던 예금액인 4억 원을 기준으로 판단함이 상당하다고 할 것이다), ④ 이 사건 예금계좌의 예금주가 소외 1이라고 하더라도, 이미 피고 2는 원고가 소외 1의 대리인으로서 그로부터 예금 인출에 관한 권한을 위임받았다는 사실을 잘 알고 있었기 때문에 비밀번호가 불일치하고 이 사건 예금계좌에서 거액의 예금이 다른 은행에 이체되는 상황이라면 모종의 범죄행위가 개입되었을 것이라는 점에 대한 의심을 함이 상당하다고 할 것이고, 원고의 지급정지요청에 대하여 예금주가 지급정지요청을 한 경우가 아니라거나 서면신청이 아니라는 이유를 들어 이를 거부할 수는 없는 점(금융사고발생의 의심이 드는 경우 일단 지급정지요청을 하고, 만약 원고와 소외 1 사이의 예금반환청구권의 소재에 관한 다툼이 있으면 업무처리절차에서 정한 바에 따라 처리하는 것이 상당하다), ⑤ 더욱이 피고 2는 긴급한 경우에는 전화 등으로 금융사고를 신고할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 대리인으로부터 지급정지요청을 받더라도 당해 계좌에 지급정지를 할 수 있다는 점을 알고 있었고, 실제로 이 사건 예금계좌로부터 2억 원이 인출되자 즉시 지급정지를 등록하였고, 그후 이 사건 예금계좌로부터 각 1억 원이 이체된 국민은행 및 중소기업은행의 각 계좌에 대해서도 지급정지를 요청하였던 점, ⑥ 피고 2가 2011. 3. 17. 08:30경 원고로부터 지급정지요청을 받고 소외 1 명의의 이 사건 예금계좌에서 2억 원이 이체될 때까지 13분 내지 14분 가량이 소요되었고, 더욱이 소외 2 명의의 예금계좌와 소외 3 명의의 예금계좌에서 각 1억 원이 인출되기까지는 37분이 소요되었는데, 이때 이 사건 예금계좌에 대한 지급정지를 등록하거나 이 사건 예금계좌로부터 각 1억 원이 이체된 국민은행 및 중소기업은행의 각 계좌에 대해서도 지급정지를 요청할 수 있었던 것으로 보이는 점 등을 고려하면, 피고 2로서는 원고로부터 3회에 걸쳐 지급정지요청을 받게 되었다면 즉시 필요한 조치를 취하였어야 함에도 뒤늦게 이 사건 예금계좌에 대한 지급정지를 등록하고 국민은행과 중소기업은행의 각 계좌에 대한 지급정지를 요청하는 바람에 원고가 인출할 금원이 소외 1에 의하여 무단 인출되는 피해가 발생하였다고 할 것이므로, 피고 2는 그로 인한 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 봄이 상당하고, 피고 농협은행 또한 피고 2의 사용자로서 사용자책임을 진다고 할 것이다(이에 대하여 피고들은 원고를 예금주로 볼 수 없는 이상 예금이 인출됨으로써 원고에게 손해가 발생하였다고는 볼 수 없다고 주장하나, 앞서 본 바와 같이 원고가 피고 2에게 이 사건 예금계좌로부터 4억 원을 인출하여 자신이 지정하는 예금계좌에 입금하여 달라는 요청을 하였고 피고 2가 이를 수락하였음에도 불구하고, 피고 2의 과실로 원고의 의사에 반하여 이 사건 예금계좌에서 제3자의 예금계좌로 예금이 이체됨으로써 원고에게 인출된 예금 상당액의 손해가 있었다고 할 것이어서, 피고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다).

In addition, if Defendant 2 took the above measures immediately after receiving the payment suspension request from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff proved that he was the agent for the opening of the instant deposit account and the return of the deposit amount, and could have been refunded the deposit amount as requested by Defendant 2. However, due to Defendant 2’s negligence, the amount transferred from the instant deposit account was entirely withdrawn and abandoned, there is a proximate causal relation between Defendant 2’s error and the Plaintiff’s loss.

(2) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the obligation to suspend payment under Articles 14 and 15 of the Terms and Conditions of Deposits does not exist only when the deposit account holder who entered into a deposit contract request in writing, and that the Plaintiff does not have any obligation to comply with the request for suspension of payment as long as the Plaintiff’s power of attorney terminates due to the termination of the business of opening an account delegated by Nonparty 1. However, the basic terms and conditions of deposit transactions of Defendant Nonghyup Bank shall be reported in writing if the occurrence of an accident, such as loss or theft of passbook, etc. is caused. However, the Defendants’ request for suspension of payment cannot be deemed to have been made within the next business day on the grounds that the deposit holder’s right to request in writing cannot be deemed to have been made. ② Even if the Plaintiff’s request for suspension of payment is not the deposit account owner, the Plaintiff’s right to request the payment of the deposit account in this case’s order cannot be deemed to have been issued with the Defendants’ right to receive payment suspension under the premise that the Plaintiff’s right to request in this case’s deposit account would not have been issued the Plaintiff’s right to request.

C. Scope of damages

(1) Furthermore, even if Defendant 2 received a request from the Plaintiff for the suspension of payment to the above Nonparty 1’s bank account, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of KRW 100 million from each of the above national bank and the Industrial Bank of Korea, even if the Plaintiff received a request for the suspension of payment from the above national bank and the Industrial Bank of Korea, shall be deemed to be KRW 20 million.

(2) However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, evidence Nos. 8-7, 8, 7, and 8 of the above evidence No. 8, ① The entire deposit amount deposited in the non-party 1’s custody and bank business delegation angle stated that “the whole deposit amount deposited in the above passbook shall be no right to the deposit amount before the creditor withdraws, and bank services shall be recognized as false report even if the creditor or company personnel, etc. have reported the loss,” and each letter of the non-party 1 stated that “the client shall not be obliged to report the loss of the deposit passbook and seal held by the trustee prior to delivery, and shall not be allowed to withdraw the above money from the non-party 100,000,000 won to the non-party 10,000 won to the non-party 2’s first account, and shall not be changed to the non-party 10,000,000 won to the non-party 2’s request for change of the passbook No. 161, which is still known by the plaintiff 21616.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 80,000 (=200,000,000 x 40/100) and 20% per annum under the Civil Act from March 17, 2011, which is the date of the instant tort, to November 21, 201, the date of the instant judgment, for the Defendants’ disputes as to the existence and scope of their obligations, and for the period from the following day to the date of full payment, to November 21, 2012.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and all of the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff is revoked, and the payment of the above money is ordered to the defendants, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-man (Presiding Justice)