[1] Whether Article 107(1) of the Civil Act may apply mutatis mutandis to an act of acting as an agent in breach of trust by a manager (affirmative), and the criteria for determining whether the other party has acted in bad faith or negligence

[2] The case holding that where the head of a bank acted as an agent in breach of trust against the bank's interest and intent, the act is invalid in relation to the bank which is the principal of the business, recognizing the other party's negligence

[3] In a case where a victim's bad faith or gross negligence is recognized as a tort committed by an employee, whether an employer's liability is recognized (negative)

[4] The case holding that a bank's employer's liability is denied in recognition of the victim's bad faith against the illegal act committed by the head of the bank branch, which appears within the scope

[1] Even if the act of a manager is about business and is within the scope of the power of representation, when the other party exercised his/her authority for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party's interest against the principal's interest or will of the business owner, if he/she knew or could have known of the fact of the manager, the business owner himself/herself shall not be held liable for the act of the manager. Whether the other party knew or could have known that the manager's intention is not true should be determined reasonably based on objective circumstances, such as the process of forming a declaration of intention between the manager and the other party, its contents, and the effects arising therefrom.

[2] The case holding that where the head of a bank arbitrarily released and discounted bills or delivered them as a security for the discounted debt at the bank's point in order to raise the price for the sale of the dys useful dys, the discount and transfer of bills are invalid in relation to the bank, which is the principal of the business, on the ground that it can be sufficiently known if he had exercised ordinary care in light of all the circumstances and circumstances, as an act of breach of trust committed against the bank's interest and intent in financial business.

[3] Even in cases where an employee's illegal act appears to fall under the scope of an employer's external execution of business, where the victim himself/herself knew, or was unaware of due to gross negligence, that the employee's act does not constitute an employer's or supervisor's performance of business on behalf of the employer or employer, the employer's liability may not be imposed on the employee, instead

[4] The case holding that since it is reasonable to view that the head of a bank knew that the act of the head of a bank knew that it does not constitute legitimate execution of the bank's business affairs, where the head of the bank borrowed bills personally or arbitrarily leaked bills, and delivered them to the victim with discounted discount or as a collateral for the discounted discount, and the head of the branch personally paid the discounted discount money within 2 months, the head of the bank is not liable for the employer to the bank

[1] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Code, Article 11 (1) of the Commercial Code / [2] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Code, Article 11 (1) of the Commercial Code / [3] Article 756 of the Civil Code / [4] Article 756 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Da29850 Decided July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1292) (Gong1988, 78), Supreme Court Decision 94Da29850 Decided April 26, 1996 (Gong196, 162), Supreme Court Decision 97Da24382 Decided February 27, 198 (Gong198, 867) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 83Da217 Decided June 28, 1983 (Gong1983, 1139), Supreme Court Decision 92Da195390 Decided July 28, 1992 (Gong1953, 197, 197Da1953995 decided July 29, 195)

Korea Light Bank (Attorney Long-ro et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Kim Young-ju et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na32879, 32886 delivered on December 24, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the principal lawsuit

A manager may engage in all judicial or extra-judicial acts on behalf of the proprietor, and restrictions on the manager’s power of representation cannot be set up against a bona fide third party (Article 11(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act). Here, whether a manager’s act concerns the business of the manager should be determined abstractly according to the objective nature of the act regardless of the manager’s subjective intent at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2073, Mar. 24, 1987; 96Da36753, Aug. 26, 197).

However, even if a manager’s act is related to business and constitutes an act within the scope of the power of representation, when the other party exercised his/her authority for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party’s interest against the principal’s interest or will, if he/she knew or could have known of the fact of the manager, the proprietor himself/herself shall not be held liable for the act of the manager under an analogical interpretation under the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act. Whether the other party knew or could have known that the manager’s intention was not a true intention should be determined reasonably based on objective circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu104, Jul. 7, 1987; 86Meu371, Nov. 10, 1987; 94Da29850, Apr. 26, 1996; 298Da2784, Apr. 27, 1998).

그런데 원심이 확정한 사실관계와 기록에 의하면, 원고(반소피고, 이하 원고라고만 한다)의 ○○지점장 소외 1은 지배인으로서 그 지점의 영업에 관한 포괄적인 대리권한을 갖고 있고, 어음 등 유가증권의 할인은 은행이 행하는 업무로서 위 지점의 영업에 해당한다 할 것이므로, 소외 1이 피고(반소원고, 이하 피고라고만 한다)에게 이 사건 원심 판시 제1어음을 할인하고 이 사건 제1, 2어음을 배서·양도한 행위는 이를 객관적·추상적으로 보아 ○○지점의 영업에 관한 행위로서 지배인인 소외 1의 대리권한의 범위 내에 속하는 것으로 보여진다 할 것이나, 소외 1이 인천투자금융 주식회사(이하 인천투금이라 한다)에 씨디를 발행금리보다 높은 이자율로 매도한 후, 그 내역을 기재한 '받을어음추심수탁통장'만을 교부하고 그 씨디를 인천투금을 위하여 보관하면서, 임의로 위 씨디를 대신증권 등에 재매도하는 방법으로 씨디를 이중매매하여 그 대금을 개인적인 자금거래에 유용하여 오던 중, 인천투금이 종전과 달리 만기에 이른 씨디 대금으로 새로운 씨디를 매입하지 아니하고 그 지급을 요구하게 되어 심한 자금압박을 받게 되자, 그 자금을 마련하기 위하여 개인적으로 빌린 희성철강 어음 등을, 또 나아가 원고 은행 ○○지점이 담보어음으로 보관중인 이 사건 제1어음을 임의로 유출시켜 피고에게 각 할인하고, 그 할인금을 자신이 유용한 씨디 대금의 지급에 사용하고, 이와 같이 개인적으로 빌리거나 유용한 위 각 어음상의 채무를 담보하기 위하여 다시 원고 은행 ○○지점이 담보어음으로 보관중인 이 사건 제2어음을 임의로 유출시켜 피고에게 교부한 것임을 알 수 있으므로, 소외 1이 원고 은행의 지배인으로서 한 이 사건 제1어음의 할인과 이 사건 제1, 2어음의 배서·양도는 그 진의가 영업주 본인인 원고 은행의 이익과 의사에 반하여 자신의 이익을 위하여 한 배임적인 것이라고 할 것이고, 한편 원심이 확정한 바와 같이 ① 피고가 장기간에 걸쳐 씨디 매매의 알선과 어음의 할인 등으로 소외 1의 개인적인 자금거래에 관여한 점, ② 소외 1이 타인으로부터 빌린 희성철강 등의 어음을 개인적인 거래로서 피고에게 할인하였고, 그에 즈음하여 이 사건 제1어음을 할인한 점, ③ 이 사건 제1어음은, 은행이 매출의 대상으로 삼는 상업어음과는 달리, 그 표면에 횡선이 그어져 있고 지급보증의 문언이 기재되어 그 유통성에 의문을 가질 수 있는 점, ④ 은행으로부터 상업어음을 매수하고자 하는 자는 은행 창구에 비치된 매입의뢰서를 작성·제출하여 정하여진 할인율에 따라 그 대금을 지급하고 이를 배서·양도받아 만기에 지급제시하여 그 어음금을 추심하는 것이 일반적인데, 피고는 이러한 절차를 거치지 아니한 채, 시중금리보다 훨씬 높은 할인율에 이 사건 제1어음을 할인해 주고, 수차에 걸쳐 그 할인대금을 지급하였을 뿐만 아니라, 소외 1로부터 원고 은행 ○○지점의 명판과 그의 사인만이 날인되고 그의 기명이 누락된 상태로 이를 배서·양도받으면서, 위 할인금의 반환은 원고 은행에 어음을 제시하여 받는 것이 아닌 소외 1 개인으로부터 변제받기로 한 점, ⑤ 이 사건 제2어음은 소외 1에 의한 금융사고가 우려되는 시점에 피고가 그 정을 알면서 취득하였고, 정상적인 은행거래에서는 있을 수 없는 방식인 이미 할인하여 준 어음에 대한 담보로서 취득한 점, ⑥ 피고는 장기간에 걸쳐 씨디 거래의 알선과 어음할인 등의 금융거래에 종사하여 그 실정이나 관행에 상당히 능통한 것으로 보여지는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 금융업을 하고 있는 피고로서는 적어도 통상의 주의만 기울였다면, 지배인 소외 1의 위 어음할인이 개인적인 자금거래로서, 그가 행한 이 사건 제1, 2어음에 대한 배서·양도행위가 자기 또는 제3자의 이익을 위하여 배임적인 의도에서 영업주인 원고 은행을 위한 진의 없이 하는 것임을 충분히 알 수 있었음이 분명하여, 위 어음할인 및 배서·양도행위는 원고 은행과의 관계에 있어서는 무효로서 그 효력이 없다 할 것이므로, 피고는 이 사건 제1, 2어음의 수취인으로서 그 소유자인 원고 은행에게 이를 반환하여야 할 의무가 있다 할 것이다.

Although the reasoning of the judgment below differs, the conclusion of accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the due cause, the manager’s power of representation, the endorsement of bills, and bona fide acquisition,

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the counterclaim

A. As to the claim for damages

Article 756 of the Civil Act provides that "in relation to the performance of an employee's work, which is an element for an employer's liability," if the employee's unlawful act objectively appears to be an employee's business activity, office performance, or performance related thereto, without considering the offender's subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the performance of an employee's work should be determined by considering the employee's original duty and the degree related to the unlawful act and the degree of the employee's loss and the degree of the employer's responsibility for the occurrence of risk to damage and the lack of preventive measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu1923, Nov. 22, 198; 95Da46890, Jan. 26, 1996; 95Da39533, Feb. 10, 198; 197Da1985, Feb. 195, 200).

As seen above, the bill of this case was endorsed and transferred in cash in the form of discount, and the non-party 1 decided to pay the discounted amount individually within 2 months. Thus, it should be deemed that the non-party 1 borrowed money from the defendant and delivered the bill as collateral. In general, it cannot be said that the discount of the bill of this case was made in personal transactions with the defendant regardless of the business of the non-party 1 for the purpose of enhancing ○○○○ branch's receipt of deposit, etc., and the discount of the bill of this case was embezzled by the non-party 1 for the purpose of raising ○○○ branch's receipt of deposit, etc., and the defendant was also aware of such circumstances. Thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for damages against the plaintiff bank.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles on employer liability.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

B. As to the return of discount on the warranty period and the return of unjust enrichment

As seen earlier, the discount and endorsement and transfer of the bill No. 1 between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant are null and void in relation to the Plaintiff bank. As such, the Defendant cannot be held liable for warranty on the premise that the said bill was duly acquired by the Plaintiff. Even if Nonparty 1 wired the bill and the bill No. 1 to the Incheon Investment Bank, this cannot be deemed to have been used for the payment of the debt to the Plaintiff bank, and the Defendant’s unjust enrichment cannot be deemed to have been realized as unjust enrichment, since Nonparty 1 sold the bill and the bill No. 1 in this case to the Plaintiff in this case to the Incheon Investment Bank. The Plaintiff did not have any unjust enrichment as it did not have any reasonable ground to deem that the Plaintiff bank used the discounted bill to pay the debt to the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts, act of manager's business, and causation of unjust enrichment.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)