A. Whether to apply the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act to the agency act by analogy and its criteria

(b) Validity of a contract that violates Article 38 or 39 of the Act on Assistance to Increase in Savings and Formation of Workers' Property;

C. Whether it falls under the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act of a deposit contract concluded between a bank head and a proxy in the so-called “title” case

A. In a case where the other party knew or could have known that the other party's expression of intention is made by an agent who is not a true doctor under Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act, and that the other party's actual intention is in breach of trust for his own interest or a third party's interest against his own interest or will, under the analogical interpretation of the proviso of the same paragraph, the act of the agent cannot be established as a principal's act, and thus, the principal is not liable for the act of the agent. In this case, whether the other party knew or could have known that he had known of the intention of the agent's expression, or not, should be determined reasonably based on objective circumstances, such as the formation process and contents of the expression of intention between the agent

B. According to Articles 38, 39, and 46 of the Act on the Promotion of Savings Increase and Workers’ Property Formation Support, a person operating a savings, intermediary, employee of a savings institution, etc., shall not demand, promise, receive, etc. any unfair profit under any pretext other than the regular interest rate of a bank in relation to the savings, and shall be punished when such violation is committed. Therefore, a contract with the purport of paying the difference between the regular deposit interest of a bank and the interest rate of the bonds is null and void, at least in violation of the mandatory law governing

C. In the deposit contract, more interest than the regular deposit interest rate of a bank is regularly paid to the deposit contract, and such deposit is possible only at a specific point, and when making a deposit, cryp should be used. The amount of the deposit transaction application is an empty space, and if a hand-type passbook was issued, which is not an ordinary method, the depositor, at least, could not be said to have known that the agent’s crypian was aware of the fact that it was not an intention.

a.C. Articles 107(1) and 116(b) of the Civil Code. Article 38 of the Act on the Assistance to the Formation of Workers’ Property, Article 39 of the Act on the Promotion of Savings Increase and the Assistance to the Formation of Workers’ Property, Article 46(c) of the Act on the Assistance to the Formation of Workers’ Property, and Article 702 of the

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu104 delivered on July 7, 1987, 86Meu1097 delivered on August 18, 1987 (Dong Dong-dong) Decision 87Meu2551 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Dong-dong), 86Meu145 delivered on September 22, 1987 (Dong-dong), 86Meu238 delivered on September 13, 1987 (Dong-dong, 197, Do-dong, 197, Do-dong, 197, Do-dong, 187, Do-dong, 197, Do-dong, 197, Do-dong, 197, Do-dong, 2563 delivered on October 13, 198 (Dong-dong, 197, Do-187, 197).

Attorney Yang Chang-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Commercial Bank Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na4504 delivered on January 14, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the above deposit contract was no longer effective because it is difficult for the plaintiff to use the deposit account of the non-party 2 to raise 80,000,000 won to the employees in charge of the above counter-party 2's deposit account, and the above employees recognized that the deposit contract of this case was lawfully established between the plaintiff and the defendant bank, on the ground that it was difficult for the plaintiff to use the deposit account of the non-party 2's bank's deposit account, or that the non-party 2's agent was no longer aware of the fact that the deposit account of the above non-party 2 was no more than the deposit account of the above non-party 2's bank's agent's deposit account, or that the bank's broker was no more than the above non-party 2's ordinary bank's deposit account's bank's bank's deposit account was no more likely to have been issued, and that the above deposit contract was no more effective than the above non-party 2's bank's deposit account.

On the other hand, if the other party knew or could have known that the other party's act was in breach of trust for his own interest or a third party's interest against his own interest or will, the act of the agent cannot be established as his act of his own acting act in the analogical interpretation of the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act. In this case, whether the other party knew or could have known about the representative's acting act, or not should be determined reasonably based on objective circumstances such as the formation process of expression of intention and its contents and the effects arising therefrom (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1004, Jul. 7, 1987). Since the contract of this case was made between the plaintiff and the head of the above branch office of the defendant bank and the non-party 2, the above contract of this case was effective against the defendant bank, but since the non-party 2 knew or could not have known that the representative's acting act was effective against his own own interest or the interests of the defendant bank, the court below's act of making the deposit contract of this case as his acting.

However, among the facts acknowledged by the court below in order to reject the argument as to the expression of intent, which is not the truth of the defendant bank, the deposit contract was concluded at the normal transaction time and place of the above branch, or the interest pursuant to the regular deposit interest rate of the bank was paid at the above branch counter, or even though the passbook was able to take place, the fact that the deposit contract in this case was established at the regular form of the defendant bank cannot be viewed as the ground for rejecting the defendant's assertion solely because the court below pointed out that it was abnormal or abnormal as pointed out by the court below, and the fact that the bank did not pay expenses to the deposit owner for the purpose of attracting deposits, or that the bank did not have an example of creating a deposit by paying the difference between the interest and the loan with the bank's interest at the expense of the loan user, it is not reasonable to reject the contract as unlawful because it did not violate the law and regulations as to the payment order of the bank, as it did not constitute an unlawful violation of the law and regulations.

Rather, the facts acknowledged by the court below are more reasonable in light of the formation process and contents of the deposit contract in this case and the effect arising therefrom, which is much higher interest than the regular deposit interest rate of the Defendant bank, and it is possible to make such deposit only at the beneficial branch of the Defendant bank, and when making a deposit, the deposit should be used. The amount of the deposit transaction application is also limited to the open space and it is not ordinary, but it is not reasonable in light of the fact that the Plaintiff, a depositor, at least, was aware that the above Nonparty 2’s expression of intention was not an intention but an ordinary interest. Thus, it is more reasonable in light of the formation process of the deposit contract in this case and its contents, and its effect. Thus, the Plaintiff did not know that the deposit contract in this case was formed with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not have any influence on the establishment of the deposit contract in this case, and thus, the Plaintiff did not know that the deposit contract in this case was established with the Plaintiff’s intention or the Plaintiff’s own interest.

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)