1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant bank, as the auditor H and employee of the defendant bank, voluntarily withdraws money from the time deposit, general deposit, and Masp passbook under the plaintiffs' names, or arbitrarily collects money from the plaintiffs' deposits as collateral, the defendant bank, the employer of H and I, bears the employer's responsibility.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an employee’s unlawful act is objectively deemed to be related to the employee’s business activity, performance of duties, or performance of duties, which is an element for an employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, the term “business performance” shall be deemed to be an act performed without considering the actor’s subjective circumstances. The issue of whether it is objectively related to the performance of duties of the employee should be determined by taking into account the degree of the employee’s inherent duties and tort, the degree of the employee’s occurrence of risks and the degree of the employer’

In addition, even if the illegal act of an employee appears to fall within the scope of external execution of affairs, if the victim himself/herself knew, or was unaware of the fact that the act of the employee does not fall under the act of execution of affairs by the supervisor on behalf of the employer or employer, he/she may not be held liable for employer to the supervisor on behalf of the employer or employer. In this case, gross negligence can be seen to have known that if the other party to the transaction knew, if he/she had paid a little amount of money, the act of the employee was not legitimate within his/her official authority. However, even though he/she had known that it was not done within his/her official authority, it has considerably violated the duty of care required by the general public, and there is no need to protect the other