Where the non-party, who is the head of a bank branch, performs a payment guarantee act in the name of the head of the bank branch office, whether the bank can recognize its validity as the payment guarantee act and whether the bank is liable for damages as the employer

If the Nonparty, who is the head of a bank branch, actually paid a payment guarantee to the Nonparty as an individual on behalf of the Nonparty’s management company in the form of a bank branch office, the bank’s institution or manager cannot be deemed as having provided a payment guarantee for matters belonging to its business scope. Therefore, the bank’s validity as a payment guarantee cannot be recognized, and in the above case, the bank is not liable for damages as the employer employed by the Nonparty

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na1426 delivered on July 2, 1975

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

According to the facts established by the court below based on the adopted evidence, even if the payment guarantee act of the non-party loan with the strong amount of the defendant bank was done by using the name of the head of the defendant bank's branch, the actual act of the payment guarantee for the non-party loan with the strong amount of the defendant bank is limited to the individual qualification for the non-party loan company in the form of the defendant bank's business, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant bank's institution or manager as an institution or manager of the defendant bank provided the payment guarantee for matters belonging to its business scope. Thus, in light of the records that the defendant bank cannot recognize the validity as a payment guarantee for the defendant bank's business, it is reasonable in light of the fact that the original decision is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the payment guarantee for the non-party loan with the non-party loan with the defendant bank, and therefore, the court below's assertion that the payment guarantee act of the above strong amount of the defendant bank cannot be seen as conducted in relation to the business of the defendant bank.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-hee (Presiding Justice)