The validity of promissory notes issued and delivered by the Director of the National Bank from an individual upon borrowing money, and whether or not the bank is liable for any damage incurred therefrom.

① The above bank can borrow money from a financial institution if it is necessary to carry out its business in accordance with Article 18 of the Banking Act, and is not allowed to borrow money from any other general person. Thus, issuance of bills at the above branches goes beyond the scope of the business ability of the above bank, and the above bank is not effective against the above bank. ② In addition, since the above lending money at the above branches cannot be viewed as belonging to the act of business execution of the above bank, since the above lending money at the above branches cannot be objectively viewed as belonging to the act of business execution of the above banks, the above bank cannot be held liable to compensate for losses caused by borrowing money at the above branches.

Article 18 of the National Banking Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da811 Decided July 5, 1966

Plaintiff

Korean Bank, Inc.

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana4626) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with an annual interest rate of 6 percent from April 29, 1965 to the full payment day.

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

The defendant's attorney is seeking the same judgment as the disposition.

The fact that Nonparty 1 was the manager of the Defendant Bank as the manager of the Defendant Bank is without dispute between the parties. In full view of Nonparty 2 and 3’s testimony, Nonparty 1 borrowed KRW 500,000 from the Plaintiff and the above two testimonys, taking account of each of the above two testimonys, Nonparty 1, who was the manager of the Defendant Bank, issued and delivered promissory notes in the name of Nonparty 1 under the name of the head of the branch office of the Defendant Bank in the U.S., U.S., Bank, and the fact that the Plaintiff presented the said promissory notes to the Defendant Bank on April 28, 1965, but the payment was refused due to false issuance.

The plaintiff asserts that the non-party 1's manager of the defendant bank should pay the above promissory note to the defendant bank, and that the non-party 1 cannot borrow money from the individual manager of the defendant bank. Thus, even if the issuance of the debt and this promissory note is null and void, the non-party 1's employee's act of borrowing money against the plaintiff's bank's own name as the non-party 1's employee's act of borrowing money, and thus, the defendant bank's above non-party 1's duty to compensate the plaintiff's loss. Thus, the defendant bank's act of borrowing money against the non-party 1's policy of the above non-party 1's old financing under Article 18 (1) of the National Banking Act can not be viewed as an act of borrowing money from the non-party 1's ordinary financial institution's non-party 1's non-party 6's act of borrowing money. Thus, the defendant bank's non-party 1's act of borrowing money can not be viewed as an act of borrowing money from the defendant bank's general financial institution.

Judges Han Man-soo (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-dong