[1] Whether fraud or coercion by a person who can be deemed identical to the other party, such as a representative of the other party, constitutes fraud or coercion by a third party under Article 110(2) of the Civil Act (negative)

[2] The case holding that in case where the head of a bank's branch office at the request of a bill discount was obtained as a collateral in preparation for the default of a bill, and a monetary loan for consumption and joint and several guarantee agreement was concluded, the act of the branch office cannot be viewed as fraud by a third party

[1] Where a third party made a fraud or duress with regard to an expression of intent of the other party, such declaration of intent may be revoked only when the other party knew or could have known such fact. However, the fraud or duress by a person, such as an agent of the other party, who is deemed identical to the other party, does not constitute fraud or coercion by a third party.

[2] In a case where the head of a bank's branch office at the request of a bill discount, entered into a monetary loan for consumption and a joint and several surety agreement, and then withdraws the loan and used it, the case holding that the above branch office's act is merely the fraud of the person who can be deemed the same as the bank or bank, and it cannot be viewed as the fraud of a third party, and that the above agreement can not be revoked only where the bank knew or could have known the fraud

[1] Article 110 (2) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 110 (2) of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da41496 delivered on January 23, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 578)

Korea Housing and Commercial Bank (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Law Firm Busan Dong-dong, Attorneys Maximum price-level, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 97Na14580, 15545 delivered on October 30, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The court below found that Defendant 4, who operates Geumsan Construction Co., Ltd., requested a discount of KRW 60,00 won for the total amount of KRW 4,00,00,00,000 acquired by the said company to Nonparty 1, the head of ○○○○○○○ branch office, which was known to the Plaintiff Company, and Nonparty 1, the above company, found the above company and had the above bills, and received the above bills from the Defendants (Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 are the employees of the above company, and Defendant 2 are the relatives of Defendant 4) as a collateral in preparation for the default of the above bills, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 were the principal debtor, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 as joint surety and joint surety, and it did not accept the above part of the court below's decision that found Defendant 60,000,000,00 won in total from the Plaintiff bank.

2. Where a third party makes a fraud or coercion with regard to an expression of intent of the other party, such declaration of intent may be revoked only when the other party knew or could have known such fact. However, the fraud or coercion by a person who is deemed identical to the other party, such as an agent, does not constitute fraud or coercion by the third party as mentioned in the ground of appeal (see this Court Decision 96Da41496, Jan. 23, 1998).

If the facts of this case are identical to the above, in the monetary loan and joint and several surety agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants, the non-party 1's fraud is merely the fraud of the person who can be deemed identical to the plaintiff or the plaintiff, and cannot be viewed as the fraud of the third party. Thus, only if the plaintiff knew or could have known the non-party 1's fraud, the defendant does not

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, or inconsistent reasoning. Therefore, this ground of appeal is not accepted.

3. In this case, even if Nonparty 1 is deemed to have concluded an agreement on a monetary loan, etc. with the Plaintiff bank on behalf of the Defendants, it cannot be deemed that there is any influence on the lower court’s conclusion, and thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal that criticizes

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)