[1] Whether the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis to an act of acting as an agent in breach of trust (affirmative), and the criteria for determining whether the other party's bad faith or negligence

[2] The case denying the establishment of a deposit contract by applying the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Code mutatis mutandis in a case where the chief director of a credit union received money from others as a deposit, but without going through a normal deposit procedure

[3] The case holding that the director of a credit union recognized the duty relationship as the chief director of the credit union and recognized the liability for damages of the credit union in a arbitrarily useful case without making the money received as deposits

[1] Even in a case where a true expression of intention is made by an agent and the other party knew or could have known that the intention of the agent was in breach of trust for the benefit of himself/herself or a third party against his/her own interest or will, the principal cannot be held liable for the act of the agent under an analogical interpretation of the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Code. Whether the other party knew or could have known that it is not a true intention of the agent should be determined reasonably based on objective circumstances, such as the process of formation of the expression of intention, its contents, and the effects arising therefrom.

[2] The case holding that a deposit contract between a depositor and a credit union was not established on the ground that the depositor and a credit union did not constitute a deposit contract between the above depositor on the ground that the depositor did not intend to enter into a deposit contract with the president of the above credit union if he did not go through the deposit procedure as a deposit and used for the operating funds of the company that he operated, and the interest on the deposit is calculated and paid at an interest rate higher than the interest rate of the credit union in his own money, and the two credit unions that deposited money to the above depositors prepared and delivered a hand-time deposit certificate that was not used after the computerization of business was made and delivered to the above depositors.

[3] The case holding that, where the president of a credit union arbitrarily uses money received from others under his/her name as a deposit, such act is an act related to the act of the president of a credit union in terms of external and objective aspects, and thus, the credit union is liable to compensate for damages caused by illegal act of the president

[1] Articles 107(1) and 116 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 107(1) and 116 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 756 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Da29850 Decided July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1292) (Gong1987, 1292), Supreme Court Decision 86Da371 Decided November 10, 1987 (Gong198, 78), Supreme Court Decision 94Da29850 Decided April 26, 1996 (Gong196, 162), Supreme Court Decision 97Da24382 Decided February 27, 1998 (Gong198, 867)

Kim Vibration (Attorney Lee Jong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant Credit Union (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The outer gravity;

Daegu High Court Decision 97Na6293 delivered on July 10, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where the other party knew or could have known that the expression of intention, which is not a true intention, was made by an agent and the intention of the agent was in breach of trust for the benefit of himself or a third party against his interest or will, the principal does not bear any responsibility for the act of the agent under an analogical interpretation of the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act. Whether the other party knew or could have known that it was not a true intention of the agent should be reasonably determined based on objective circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24382, Feb. 27, 1998; 86Da371, Nov. 10, 1987).

The court below held that the non-party 1 was entrusted with KRW 370,00,00 in total over several occasions as the non-party 1, the president of the defendant association, who was the same rate of the total amount of the offage of the defendant association. The non-party 1 used it as the operating fund of the non-party 2 or the non-party 3 corporation without undergoing the deposit procedure as deposit money, and paid interest at a higher rate than the interest rate of the defendant association. The court below held that the non-party 1 prepared six copies of the manual periodical deposit certificate which was not used by the defendant association after the completion of the business computerization in 198 (the name of the non-party 1 at the request of the expiration rate of the deposit), and that the non-party 1's expression of intent to conclude the deposit contract was not significant, and therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal and the misapprehension of legal principles.

The Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1 and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal

The court below acknowledged the same facts as mentioned above, such as the fact that the defendant association deposited 370,000,000 won in a deposit with the defendant association, and recognized the fact that the non-party 1 did not normally deposit the money received as a deposit from the outer rate and arbitrarily appropriate it according to its own needs. Thus, the non-party 1's above act is an act related to the duty of the president of the defendant association in terms of external and objective aspects, and therefore, the defendant association is liable to compensate for damages caused by the non-party 1's tort, and on the other hand, the defendant association died on July 10, 1995, and thus the plaintiff inherited the property solely.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as alleged in the grounds of

As to the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and defendant

The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of negligence by the parties involved in a tort constitutes the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24382, Feb. 27, 1998; 95Da17267, Jul. 25, 1995).

After compiling the selected evidence, the court below acknowledged a series of facts as stated in the court below's decision as to the act of breach of trust in this case, and judged that it is reasonable to determine 20% of the total amount of comparative negligence in relation to the act of breach of trust in this case. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to comparative negligence.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)