(a) Responsibilities of employers and the relationship between whether the employer and the victim knew that the act was not an act of performing affairs;

(b) Whether a credit cooperative has a negligence in lending money to the head of the cooperative by offering as security a statement of party shares in the name of the expenditure station of the farmland improvement cooperative (affirmative);

(a) If the victim himself/herself knew, or was negligent in gross negligence, that his/her illegal act does not constitute an employer’s act of performing his/her duties, the victim shall not be held liable to the employer.

B. In the event that the head of the farmland improvement association borrowed money from the credit treasury for personal purposes in collusion with the expenditure station of the association and issued one share sheet in the name of the association for any internal procedure or without the approval of the Do governor, and delivered it to the credit treasury as a security for the above loan, the credit treasury, the purpose of which is the credit loan, etc., can be seen as having been sufficiently restricted by the law as to the debt security of the farmland improvement association. Since it is extremely limited to the case where the farmland improvement association issues the loan borrowed from the credit treasury as a security for the money borrowed from the credit treasury, it is extremely important that the credit treasury, barring special circumstances, knew or was unable to know that the issuance of the check was not legitimate.

A. Article 756(b) of the Civil Act: Articles 23, 52, and 183 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act; Article 9 of the Addenda to the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act; Article 71 of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act; Article 53 of the Check Act; Articles 34 and 756 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd.

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na1826 delivered on December 22, 1982

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the ancillary claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to this part shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

(1) An employer may not be exempted from liability pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act in cases where an employee’s unlawful act appears to fall under the scope of the employer’s performance of duties. However, in cases where the victim himself/herself knew, or did not know, due to gross negligence, that the employee’s unlawful act does not constitute an employer’s performance of duties, the employer may not be held liable.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in collusion with the non-party 2, who was in the position of the president of the defendant association, who borrowed 10,000,000 won from the plaintiff for personal purposes in collusion with the non-party 2, who was in the expenditure station of the defendant association, and let the non-party 2 obtain approval of the Do governor which is the supervisory office, from the non-party 2 without internal procedure or approval procedure, the issue date of the non-party 10,00,000 won at face value, and the non-party 2 issued one check in the name of the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, who was in the non-party 2, the defendant association's expenditure station of the defendant association, and deliver it to the plaintiff as a security for the above loan, the court below held that the non-party's execution of the check cannot be held liable for damages caused by the non-party's offering of the above guarantee to the plaintiff's association as a security.

(2) However, according to the records, the Plaintiff appears to be a credit cooperative with credit loans, etc. for its business purpose at which it can be aware of the legal restrictions on Defendant Farmland Improvement Association’s debt burden. According to the facts established in the court below and the records, the check was issued as a security for payment of KRW 10,00,000, which was personally borrowed from the Plaintiff by Nonparty 1. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be a gross negligence, barring special circumstances, even if he knew, or was unaware, of the fact that the check was not lawfully issued.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of the execution of affairs under the Civil Act with respect to the liability of employers under the Civil Act, which recognized the defendant's employer's liability with the above points, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. We examine the grounds of incidental appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: First, the court below decided that the check of this case was issued without internal procedures or approval from the Do governor with respect to the claim for the check of this case, and that the check of this case did not take effect in violation of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, which is a mandatory provision, and that the check of this case cannot be deemed as an act of bearing the obligation to obtain approval from the Do governor; second, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the check Act and the Civil Act, and second, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the liability to guarantee the check of this case.

However, the above reasons do not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Fixed Amount, and they cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant as to the conjunctive claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the supplementary appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)