Where a bank branch and vice-branch make an endorsement of bank name on a promissory note issued by another person, and a bank branch and sub-branch have prepared and delivered a payment guarantee certificate for the bank name, they shall be liable for

In the event that “A” lends money to “B” and “B” and prepares and delivers a payment guarantee letter stating that the payment of the said Promissory Notes is guaranteed in the name of the bank branch and vice-branch in the name of the bank, the act of endorsement or payment guarantee is not effective under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, even if it is not effective as an endorsement or a payment guarantee under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, it is closely related to the attraction of the deposits, which are the original business of the said branch and vice-branch, and the loan business, which assist the head of the bank throughout the overall affairs of the bank, and the bank is liable to compensate “A” as an employee of the said branch and vice-branch.

Attorney Lee Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea Housing and Commercial Bank (Attorney Kang Ho-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 74Na199 delivered on December 17, 1974

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

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney are examined (the grounds of appeal are examined after the expiration of the submission period, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

Judgment on the Grounds of Appeal No. 1

The court below held that the non-party, who was the vice head of the Busan Bank's Busan Branch, committed the act of this case, and the non-party's purpose was to attract the revenue of the common daily exhibition held by the non-party Jinjin as the chief executive officer of the operation committee, can be acknowledged by the statement of the non-party's suspect interrogation protocol among the criminal record verification results adopted by the court below, and the non-party's formation of the above non-party's Promissory Notes (Evidence A) and delivery of this case's Promissory Notes to the plaintiff on its face of endorsement was not recognized by evidence of the court below's determination that the non-party's act of securing the payment guarantee amount of the non-party's duty of the non-party bank's loan and the non-party's payment guarantee amount cannot be viewed to be justified by the court below's determination that the non-party's act of this case's act of offering the payment guarantee amount of the non-party's loan to the non-party's Busan Bank's Busan Bank's employees and its employees.

Determination on the above ground of appeal No. 2

The latter part of the original decision of the court below, which was pointed out in the argument of the appeal, is not a determination of the non-party's actor's act as his duty, but a statement that the defendant bank branch and the vice head of the defendant bank are closely related to the work of the non-party's original act and are viewed as his act in appearance similar to his duty act. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the reasons are inconsistent between the former part

As to the ground of appeal No. 3

However, even if the court below examined the records that the court below found the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant as the original purchase price in consideration of the plaintiff's negligence with respect to the act of deception in this case, it did not appear that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on offsetting negligence by making the plaintiff under-off even though the plaintiff's negligence was serious, as stated in the arguments.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)