The case that the securities transaction consignment is not only a loan for consumption between individuals, but also a loan for consumption between securities companies.

When an employee of a securities company borrows money to an employee of a securities company and receives only a written request for securities entered into the securities transaction entrustment account established in the name of the sale agreement report or virtual name, it cannot be deemed that the securities transaction entrustment contract has been concluded.

Article 101 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant Stock Company

Seoul Central District Court (84 Gohap4278) in the first instance trial

1. Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant who ordered payment from September 29, 1984 to the plaintiff 1 in an amount exceeding 9,546 won per annum from September 29, 1984, and the part against the defendant who lost against the plaintiff 2 and 3 in an amount equal to 5 percent per annum from September 29, 1984, and all the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims corresponding to the above revoked part

2. The defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiffs' appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. All the costs of the first and second trials are assessed against the plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiffs, as their primary and conjunctive, shall:

The defendant shall pay 20,289,546 won to the plaintiff 1, 50,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 131,551,020 won to the plaintiff 3, and 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The main and ancillary defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 6,289,546 won, 15,565,556 won to the plaintiff 2, 83,775,510 won, and 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. The judgment of the court of first and second instances that all costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

The judgment of the court of first and second instances that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Judgment on the main claim

On May 28, 1981, Plaintiff 1 opened a truster account and traded securities with the Non-Party’s recommendation, which is the vice head or vice head of the Defendant Company’s secondary branch. On July 24, 1981, the Plaintiffs amounted to KRW 20,289,546 of the stock purchase consignment amount deposited as of July 24, 198.

(2) Upon the Non-Party’s recommendation, Plaintiff 2 entrusted the purchase of Samsung Electronic Stocks 42,800 shares on July 25 of the same year, and deposited KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant Company via the Non-Party;

(3) Plaintiff 3 entrusted the purchase of shares and deposited KRW 131,51,020 on March 12, 12 of the same year with the funds of the Nonparty via the Nonparty, and deposited KRW 3,000,000 on March 23, 200 of the same year, KRW 30,000 on June 20 of the same year, KRW 15,00,000 on July 21 of the same year, KRW 80,51,020 on July 27 of the same year, and KRW 131,51,51,020 on the aggregate of KRW 80,51,020 on consignment with each of the above securities transaction consignment agreements between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Company. The Defendant is not the Defendant’s representative, and even if the Nonparty was granted the above funds from the Plaintiffs, the Defendant asserts that it is liable to return each of the above consignment agreement under Article 14 of the Commercial Act.

그러므로 살피건대, 피고가 증권거래법에 정한 유가증권의 매매위탁매매등의 증권업을 경영하는 증권회사인 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1(위탁자통장표지) 갑 제3호증(매도약정보고서, 갑 제13호증의 10과 같다), 갑 제10호증의 1내지 3(각 증권청구서), 갑 제11호증의 4,9(각 진술조서, 다만 뒤에서 믿지않는 부분제외), 갑 제13호증의 7,13,14(각 피의자신문조서, 갑 제13호증의 14중 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분제외),11(계산서), 갑 제14호증의 7(증인신문조서), 8(판결), 갑 제15호증의 1내지 4, 갑 제17호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제15호증의 1 내지 5(각 위탁자 예수금원장, 그중 을 제15호증의 4는 갑 제16호증의 1,2와 같고, 을 제15호증의 5의 앞면은 갑 제16호증의 3과 같다), 을 제1호증의 3,4,5(각 진술서, 을 제1호증의 4는 갑 제13호증의 9와 같다), 을 제2호증의 3(항소이유서, 뒤에서 믿지않는 부분제외), 을 제12호증의 1 내지 10, 을 제13호증의 1,2(각 위탁자유가증권원장), 을 제14호증의 1 내지 99(각 매도주문표), 갑 제18호증의 4,7,8, 을 제16호증의 4,5(각 피의자신문조서, 갑 제18호증의 4는 을 제16호증의 2와 같다. 각 뒤에서 믿지않는 부분제외), 원심증인 권완동의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제1호증의 2(위탁자통장내용), 원심증인 신인철의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제2호증(차용증), 갑 제9호증의 1,2(각 현금보관증 갑 제11호증의 7,6과 같다),3(차용증, 갑 제11호증의 5와 같다)의 각 기재와 위 증인들 및 원심증인 박봉환, 구재면의 각 증언 각 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합해보면 (1) 원고 1은 1981.5.28.전에 한국증권거래소에 같이 근무하여 알고 있는 피고회사 중부지점 차장 소외인의 권유로 증권거래에 투자하기 위하여 위 중부지점내 동 소외인의 사무실에서 피고회사를 대리한 동 소외인과 사이에 금 20,000,000원을 증권매매위탁 증거금의 예수금조로 예치하고 증권매매위탁계약을 체결함과 동시에 구좌번호 " (생략)"로 된 같은원고 명의의 증권매매위탁 구좌를 개설하고 동 소외인으로부터 그 위탁자 통장을 교부받은 사실, 그런데 위 원고는 증권매매에 관하여 지식과 경험이 부족하였던 관계로 위 소외인과 사이에 그에게 증권매매의 종류, 종목, 수량, 가격등 일체의 사항을 위임하고 위 소외인이 증권거래를 하여 얻는 이익중 매월 같은 원고에게 위탁금의 3푼 5리에 해당하는 이익금을 지급하기로 하는 내용의 약정을 체결한 사실, 위 소외인은 증권매매시마다 수시로 같은 원고로부터 위 위탁자 통장과 인장을 교부받아 같은 원고의 구좌를 통하여 같은 해 7.24.까지 증권매매를 하여 같은날 현재 위 구좌의 위탁금 잔액이 금 20,289,546원인 사실, 위 원고는 같은날 여름휴가를 떠나면서 위 소외인에게 위탁자통장과 인장을 맡기고 증권매매를 위탁하자 위 소외인은 같은 그 구좌에서 금 20,280,000원을 인출하여 임의로 그 자신의 증권투자로 인한 결손금의 보충등에 소비, 횡령한 사실, (2) 원고 2는 1980.6.17.부터 피고회사 중부지점에 구좌번호 " (생략)" 구좌명 "와이.에스(Y.S)"로 된 증권매매위탁구좌를 개설하고 증권매매를 하여온 사실, 그런데 소외인이 1981.7.25. 위 중부지점내 그의 사무실에서 자신이 증권투자로 인한 결손금을 보충하기 위한 돈이 필요하여 위 원고를 속여 돈을 편취할 목적으로 위 원고에게 금 50,000,000원을 차용해주면 금 1,000,000원당 1일 금 1,500원의 비율에 의한 이자를 지급하고 그 변제방법으로서 위 원고의 와이.에스 구좌명의로 삼성전자주식 52,800주(27,800주+25,000주)를 매도하여 그 매도대금이 같은달 29까지 그 구좌에 입금되게 하고 주식매수인에게 인도하여 줄 삼성전자주식 52,800주를 그날까지 위 구좌에 입고시켜 놓겠다고 말하여 이를 믿은 위 원고로부터 금 50,000,000원을 교부받은 다음 그 변제의 담보로서 위 원고에게 삼성전자주식 27,800주에 대한 매도약정보고서를 교부하여 주고 와이.에스 구좌명의로 삼성전자주식 27,800주만을 총대금 27,879,000원에 공매도 하여 같은달 28. 수탁수수료 금 201,153원, 증권거래세 금 55,758원을 공제한 금 27,622,089원을 위 구좌예수금에 입금되도록 하였으나 그날까지 주식매수인에게 인도하여 줄 위 주식 27,800주를 입고시키지 아니한 채 위 원고로부터 교부받은 금 50,000,000원을 임의로 자신의 증권투자로 인한 결손금등에 소비하고 이에 같은 원고가 부득이 자기의 구좌인 위 와이.에스 구좌의 계산으로 주식매수인에게 인도할 위 주식 27,800주를 매수한 사실, (3) 소외인은 소외 회사 중앙지점장인 원고 3으로부터 돈을 편취할 목적으로 같은 원고에게 금 1,000,000원당 1일 금 2,000원의 비율에 의한 이자를 주겠으니 돈을 차용해 줄 것을 요구하여 1981.6.20. 같은 원고의 사무실인 위 중앙지점장실에서 금 30,000,000원을 차용하면서 그 담보로 위 소외인이 개인적으로 피고회사와 증권위탁거래를 하기 위하여 "김일환"이라는 가명으로 설정한 증권매매위탁구좌에 입고된 증권의 반환을 청구하는 증권청구서 3장(정우개발주식 15,000주, 선경주식 8,000주, 삼영화학주식 10,000주)을 위 원고에게 교부하고 역시 위 "김일환"명의의 증권청구서를 담보로 제공하여 주기로 하고 위 원고로부터 같은 이자약정으로 같은 장소에서 같은해 7.21. 금 15,000,000원, 같은달 27. 금 50,551,020원을 각 차용하여 (같은달 28에 위에 본 같은해 6.20. 차용한 금 30,000,000과 같은해 7.27. 차용한 금 50,551,020원을 합쳐 금 80,551,020원 짜리 차용증을 같은 원고에게 작성, 교부하였다)이를 모두 자신의 증권투자로 인한 결손금등에 소비한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 위 인정에 반하는 위 갑 제11호증의 4,9, 갑 제13호증의 14, 을 제2호증의 3, 을 제16호증의 4,5의 각 일부기재와 위 증인들의 각 일부증언은 믿지 아니하고 달리 반증이 없다.

According to the above facts, (1) between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant company opened a securities consignment account under the name of the same plaintiff, and a lawful consignment contract relationship is established by the issuance of the above truster passbook, and accordingly the securities consignment transaction was conducted (the defendant's above consignment contract is invalid as a false agreement among individuals, but there is no evidence other than the above rejection, and the above defense is groundless). The above consignment contract was terminated upon delivery to the defendant by the complaint of this case claiming the return of the consignment contract. As to the scope of the consignment contract, 20,280,00 won out of the above consignment contract was delivered to the defendant on July 24, 1981 by the above consignment account and seal, which was delivered to the defendant company at the time of the purchase and sale of the securities, and the above consignment contract was concluded with the defendant company's right to the above consignment contract, and thus, the above consignment contract was not concluded with the defendant company's right to the defendant company and the defendant company's claim for the above consignment contract was not concluded within 20,2800,00 won.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

(1) On July 24, 1981, the non-party, who is the vice head or vice head of the defendant company, was entrusted with securities transaction by the plaintiff 1 at the middle branch office of the non-party in the above non-party's middle branch office, and then embezzled 20,280,000 won from the above passbook in the above passbook, thereby causing damage to the same plaintiff. (2) On July 25, 1981, the defendant borrowed 50,000,000 won from the same office office to the non-party 2 in order to sell shares under the name of E.S. and deposit the sales amount to the above account. The facts that the plaintiff caused damage to the above amount by acquiring 50,00,000 won from the plaintiff's second branch office of the non-party in the above non-party's middle branch office are related to the non-party's execution of securities transaction, and thus, the defendant is closely related to the non-party's execution of securities transaction.

However, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the testimony of the above evidence Nos. 1-3 and 4 of Eul and the witness 1-4, and each testimony of the court of trial, the non-party embezzled or stolen the securities transaction funds of the above plaintiffs and the customers of the affiliated branch of the defendant company and the defendant company, and escaped and locked on July 28, 1981, the non-party can be recognized as having known the fact that the non-party embezzled, stolen, stolen, and stolen the above funds of the plaintiffs, and it can be recognized that the non-party came to know of the fact that the non-party embezzled, stolen, stolen, and stolen the above funds of the plaintiffs and the non-party came to know of the above facts. Thus, the above plaintiffs' right to claim damages has been extinguished due to the expiration of the statute of limitations of prescription of the claim for damages due to the tort from July 28, 1981 to September 1, 194, which is the date of the filing of the lawsuit of this case.

The plaintiff 3 had agreed to provide or offer as security the securities claim against the old Kim Il-sung, a part of the consignment contract for the sale of securities in the name of the securities company, and caused damages to the above plaintiff by taking advantage of the above money 95,51,020 won. Since the above acts of the non-party are related to the business of the defendant company as the vice head of the above non-party, the defendant company is responsible for compensating for damages suffered by the above plaintiff as the non-party's employer. Thus, the above non-party borrowed the above amount of 95,551,020 won from the above plaintiff, who is the head of the central branch office of the securities company instead of the non-party, at the above non-party, the above non-party borrowed the above amount of 95,51,020 won as security and agreed to provide or offer the middle right claim in the name of the above Kim Il-sung, the above act of borrowing the above non-party's individual loan relationship with the plaintiff and it cannot be viewed as an act related to the defendant's business.

3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay in civil law (the above plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from September 29, 1984 to the date following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case to the plaintiff 1, as well as from September 29, 1984 to the date of full payment of 5% per annum (the above plaintiff is entitled to claim damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, but it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence and scope of the interest obligation in this case). The plaintiff's primary claim is justified within the above scope of the above recognition, and the remaining plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed, and the above plaintiff's primary claim and the remaining main and conjunctive claim of the plaintiff are dismissed without merit. Accordingly, since the judgment of the court is improper in conclusion, each part of the plaintiff 2 and 3's claim against the plaintiff 1 is dismissed, and Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act is dismissed.

Judges Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Judge)