1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the embezzlement of this case occurred due to the negligence as follows. As such, the Defendants are not only liable for joint tort against the victim H along with G, but also Defendant Gyeongnam Bank is also liable for nonperformance due to the employer’s liability or breach of fiduciary duty under a loan agreement with H as the employer of the Defendant’s employees.

The Plaintiff, as a user of G, assumed an employer’s liability against the victim H, but did not commit any negligence in the occurrence of the embezzlement of this case, the Plaintiff compensated the victim H for the total amount of damages.

In the first place, there is no portion of the Plaintiff’s relationship with the Defendants, and the Defendants are obligated to claim for reimbursement of KRW 280,00,000 as part of the total amount of damages to each Plaintiff, and the Defendants are obligated to claim for reimbursement of KRW 280,00 as part of the total amount of damages to each Plaintiff. In the second place, even if the Plaintiff had the burden in relation with the Defendants, the said percentage is more than 25%, and the total amount of reimbursement by the Defendants is more than KRW 280,00,00,000, which is equivalent to approximately 75% of the total amount of damages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obligated to claim for reimbursement of KRW 10,00,00 for Defendant Kimnam Bank, Defendant B, C, and D, and Defendant E, respectively.

1. Pursuant to Articles 78 and 91 of the Regulation on Supervision of Banking Business, Defendant Yong-Nam Bank shall establish and operate measures to prevent financial accidents and internal standards to deal with credit affairs, and shall be obligated to check from time to time whether loans are used for the intended purpose and to prevent financial accidents such as embezzlement of this case.

Nevertheless, Defendant Gyeongnam Bank did not explicitly establish the above preventive rules by neglecting it, and Defendant B, C, and D are intended for loans.