1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.

I. The reasons why the court should explain this case are as follows: the part of the "2. Judgment" of the court of first instance not more than 10 pages 3 of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance except for the second case as stated in II. Thus, this part shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Ⅱ Part of the judgment of the first instance; and

2. Determination

A. As to the instant bank, the Defendant is liable for damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act, and the Plaintiff bears an employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act due to the Defendant’s tort committed by the employee, and the Plaintiff paid the full amount of damages to the instant bank (the character savings and the food mutual savings). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to indemnity against the Defendant, who is an employee.

B. 1) In general, in cases where an employer has suffered direct loss due to a tort committed in relation to the performance of duties by an employee or the victim has suffered loss as a result of the employer's liability for damages, the employer can exercise the right to indemnity against the employee only to the extent deemed reasonable under the good faith principle in light of the nature and scale of the business, status of the facility, details of the employee's duties, working conditions or attitude of the employee, situation of the harmful act, degree of consideration of the employer as to the prevention of harmful act or the distribution of loss, and other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da2595, Sept. 25, 1992; 91Da7255, May 10, 1991; 86Meu1045, Sept. 8, 1987).

As to each part of the instant real estate by Dong Fire.