1 The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant Bank should bear the employer’s responsibility, since D, who is the B and the employees of the Defendant Bank, obtained a total of KRW 525 million from the Plaintiff from June 24, 2010 to December 12, 2013.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an employee’s unlawful act is objectively deemed to be related to the employee’s business activity, performance of duties, or performance of duties, which is an element for an employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, the term “business performance” shall be deemed to be an act performed without considering the actor’s subjective circumstances. The issue of whether it is objectively related to the performance of duties of the employee should be determined by taking into account the degree of the employee’s inherent duties and tort, the degree of the employee’s occurrence of risks and the degree of the employer’

In addition, even if the illegal act of an employee appears to fall within the scope of external execution of business affairs, if the victim himself/herself knew, or was unaware of the fact that the act of the employee does not fall under the act of execution of business affairs by the supervisor on behalf of the employer or employer, he/she may not be held liable for the employer to the supervisor on behalf of the employer or employer. In this case, gross negligence refers to the situation where the other party to the transaction knew, if he/she had paid a little amount of money, that the act of the employee was not legitimate within his/her official authority. However, even though the other party to the transaction, he/she could have known that it was not a violation of the duty of care required by the general public by believing it as an act within his/her authority

In particular, transactions with financial institutions are transactions with employees of financial institutions.