1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance cited this case are stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the supplement of the judgment as to the plaintiff's assertion, which is identical to that of the first instance judgment.

Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted as it is.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have violated Article 4(1) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions, since the holder of the instant cover note is the non-party company, and the Plaintiff thought that the instant cover note was delivered to the non-party company, and issued a copy of the instant cover note and a forged copy.

However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is evident that the Plaintiff violated Article 4(1) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions, as long as it cannot be deemed that Nonparty Company or U, its representative director, demanded the Plaintiff to deliver a copy of the instant cover note and a forged copy, or consented to the Plaintiff’s above act.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, unless there are relevant statutes or regulations governing the duty of care to verify the authenticity of the relevant bill to the person in charge of the issuance of the cover note, the third misconduct in the instant case cannot be deemed as grounds for disciplinary action, unless there is any provision regarding the duty of care to verify the authenticity of the bill.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence admitted by the first instance court as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is under the duty to closely verify whether the instant cover notes were modified or not in accordance with the Intervenor’s deposit business guidelines.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

1 When issuing a cover bill, each imprint of the seal of the person in charge and the official seal of the branch office, shall be whatever.