(a) Whether a payment guarantee contract is concluded between the bond business operator and the bank where the bond business operator lends money to the head of the bank with a false payment guarantee letter prepared by him/her;

(b) In the case of the above referred to in paragraph (1), a bank's employer liability;

In a case where a bond company has received a false payment guarantee from the head of a bank to raise another person's business capital personally and has lent money, it is merely a certificate that the above payment guarantee is not a securities but a civil guarantee liability, and even if the bond company holds the payment guarantee certificate, it cannot be said that the bond company's payment guarantee duty takes place immediately. In addition, it cannot be said that the bond company and the bank have concluded the payment guarantee contract between the bond company and the bank.

A. Article 428 of the Civil Act; Article 756 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Yong-chul

Gwangju Bank, Inc.

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 454,080,000 won with five percent per annum from August 28, 1991 to December 4, 1991, twenty-five percent per annum from December 5, 191 to full payment, and twenty-five percent per annum from December 5, 191 to full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Ten minutes of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, the remainder by the defendant, and each by the defendant.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 60 million won with 20 million won per annum from August 28, 1991 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 60 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date, 25 percent per annum from the next day, and 60 million won with interest per annum.

1. 갑 제1호증의 1,2,3, 갑 제3호증의 1,2, 갑 제4호증의 1 내지 6,8,12, 갑 제5호증 내지 갑 제9호증, 을 제1,3호증의 각 기재와 증인 방금용, 소외 1, 김문기, 박장원의 각 증언(다만 증인 방금용, 소외 1의 각 일부증언 중 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분 제외) 및 당원의 주식회사 광주은행 (지점명칭 생략)지점장에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 1은 1990.6.4.부터 1991.6.23.까지 피고 은행 (지점명칭 생략)지점장(지배인)으로 근무하면서 원화지급보증(사업자등록을 가지고 있는 채무자가 금융기관이나 기업체인 보증처로부터 사업목적을 위하여 융자를 받을 수 있도록 보증인으로서 채무자를 위하여 보증을 하는 것) 등 은행업무 전반을 담당하였던 사실, 위 소외 1은 1990.10.하순 일자불상경 서울건설주식회사를 경영한다는 소외 2가 피고 은행 (지점명칭 생략)지점으로 찾아와 자신은 광주 동구 소태동에 빌라를 건축하려 한다면서 그 설계도를 보여 주며 사업계획 등을 설명하고서는 우선 건축비의 일부를 대출해 주면 공사착공 후 분양계약금과 중도금 등을 받아 즉시 변제하고 또 금 30억 원 정도를 예치시켜 주겠다고 하자 위 소외 2의 재산상태나 신용 여부 등을 조사하여 보지도 아니하고 위 소외 2에게 부동산저당대출 금 2억 원을 대출한 것을 비롯하여 담보제한물건을 담보물로 취득하거나, 대출한도액을 회피하기 위하여 다른 사람의 명의를 이용하여 분할하여 대출하거나, 본점의 승인을 받지 아니하고 지점장의 전결권을 초과하여 전행대출하는 등의 부당대출의 방법까지 동원하여 약 금 18억 원 정도를 대출하였고 다른 대출로는 더 이상 대출을 할수 없게 되자, 1991.2. 일자불상경 위 소외 2, 위 (지점명칭 생략)지점 차장인 소외 3 등과 모여 마침 본점으로부터 내려온 원화지급보증활성화지침을 받고 이를 이용하여 지급보증서를 발행, 사채를 차용하여 위 소외 2의 부도를 막기로 공모하기에 이른 사실, 이에 따라 위 소외 1은 1991.5.28. 피고 은행 (지점명칭 생략)지점장실에서 사채중개업자인 소외 방금용으로부터 소개받은 원고에게 지급보증서를 담보로하여 금 6억 원을 빌려 달라고 요구하여 그로부터 금 6억 원에서 월 1푼 8리의 3개월분 선이자를 공제한 금 567,600,000원을 교부받아 위 지점의 소외 고재복 계장으로 하여금 이를 위 소외 1이 허위로 개설하여 둔 소외 영동건설주식회사 명의의 기업자유예금구좌(구좌번호005-05-000385)에 입금하도록 하면서 위 고재복에게 금 6억 원의 지급보증서를 작성해 오라고 지시한 사실, 금융통화위원회의 금융기관여신운용규정 및 피고 은행의 지급보증규정, 직무전결규정 등에 의하면 원화지급보증은 기업금융의 효율적 공급을 유도하기 위하여 사업목적의 채무에 대하여 보증하는 것으로서 피보증채무는 이러한 사업목적의 채무에만 한정되어 있고 당사자간의 단순한 금융거래 목적의 채무에 대하여는 보증할 수 없으며, 지점장이 지급보증계약을 체결할 수 있는 전결한도는 담보가 제공된 경우는 금 2억 원, 담보가 제공되지 아니한 경우에는 금 1천 5백만 원이고, 지급보증 취급시에는 채무자로부터 융자상담 및 신청서, 지급보증거래약정서 등의 서류를 징구하여 지급보증신청이 위와 같은 지급보증의 목적에 적합한가를 검토하여 보증 여부를 결정하도록 되어 있음에도 불구하고, 위 소외 1과 위 소외 3은 위와 같은 공모에 따라 채무자 소외 4(피고 은행의 지급보증규정에 의하면 채무자는 사업자등록을 한 사업자라야 하므로 위 소외 2의 처인 소외 4 명의로 신광물산이라는 상호로 사업자등록을 하여 소외 4를 채무자로 하였다)와 피고 은행 (지점명칭 생략)지점 사이에 보증처를 범아수산(마찬가지로 채권자인 보증처는 사업자등록을 한 사업자라야 하므로 소외 4의 친척이 경영하는 범아수산을 보증처로 하였다)으로 하여 원초 외상구매대금의 담보를 위한 지급보증거래약정을 체결한 양 허위의 지급보증거래약정서 등을 작성하여 두었고 그 정을 모르는 위 고재복은 증서기번호 90-56, 90-57, 90-58, 각 보증인 피고 은행 (지점명칭 생략)지점장, 채무자 소외 4, 보증처 범아수산, 피보증채무의 내용 원초 외상구매대금담보, 보증금액 금 200,000,000원, 보증기간 1991.5.28.부터 같은 해 8.28.까지로 하는 지급보증서 36(갑 제1호증의 1,2,3)를 작성하여 결재를 올리자 즉석에서 위 소외 1이 지점장 직인을 날인한 다음 위 지급보증서 3매를 원고에게 교부한 사실, 그 자리에서 원고는 위 지급보증서상 보증처가 범아수산으로 되어 있고 지급보증서의 이면의 약관에 위 보증서는 양도할 수 없으며 보증목적(피보증채무의 내용) 이외의 용도로 사용하였을 때에는 지급되지 아니한다고 기재되어 있으므로 위 소외 1에게 위 지급보증서를 보증기간 내에 제시하면 지급을 받을 수 있는지를 문의하자 위 소외 1은 위 지급보증서가

Despite the fact that the above payment guarantee letter has been issued lawfully by the defendant bank, the above payment guarantee letter is a false statement that it would be immediately settled within the guarantee period or if it is collected through another bank (the above amount was paid to the above non-party 2 by means of old adjustment, etc.). The plaintiff presented each of the above payment guarantee letter at the above (the name of the branch omitted) point on August 28, 1991, which is within the execution period of the above guarantee obligation, but the payment was refused on the ground that the above payment was not in form, and some of the witness money and the testimony of non-party 1 against the above recognition were not trusted.

2. The plaintiff is the holder of the above payment guarantee certificate, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount based on the above payment guarantee certificate, and even if not, the plaintiff concluded a guarantee contract with the defendant in the name of the above offender fishery, so the defendant is obligated to perform the guaranteed obligation under each of the above payment guarantee certificates to the plaintiff.

Therefore, according to the above facts, each of the above payment guarantee certificates is merely a certificate that provides that the above payment guarantee certificates shall not be securities, but shall bear a civil guarantee obligation (in its side, there is no provision that the transfer prohibition is stated) and thus, the plaintiff holds each of the above payment guarantee certificates, and thus, the defendant cannot be said to have a payment obligation under the above payment guarantee certificates, and the payment guarantee contract between the plaintiff and the defendant bank cannot be said to have been concluded.

In addition, the above payment guarantee contract of the defendant is a kind of contract for the third party that the defendant agrees to pay the guaranteed obligation to the guarantor (creditor), and such payment guarantee contract is not concluded between the guarantor (creditor) and the defendant (sureties). The guarantor (creditor) is merely a person designated as the beneficiary of the guarantee contract between the client (debtor) and the defendant (sureties). Each payment guarantee letter is issued by the above non-party 1 without authority in the form of the above non-party 1, who is the head of the branch of the defendant bank (branch name omitted) and the above non-party 2 in order to provide financing to the above non-party 4, the debtor, and the guaranteed debt as the security for the non-party 4, the debtor, and the defendant. Even if it is not so, the basic guarantee contract itself between the plaintiff 4 and the defendant, the guarantee requester, and the defendant, and even if it is not concluded between the plaintiff 4 and the above defendant, the above payment guarantee letter and the defendant's beneficiary cannot be concluded as the payment guarantee letter only between the plaintiff 1 and the above defendant's beneficiary.

In addition, the plaintiff's assertion does not purport to seek a guarantee liability based on the above payment guarantee guarantee, and even if it is argued that a guarantee contract between the plaintiff and the defendant has been established as a guarantee contract with the debtor as the non-party 4, a guarantee contract can generally be established orally, but it is extremely rare that the bank provides a payment guarantee for a loan between the non-party, and executes a written contract without resorting to the document while entering into such guarantee contract. However, according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff did not only deliver a certificate of loan, guarantee contract, or other documents related to claims with the above non-party 1's belief that it would be immediately settled upon the presentation of the above payment guarantee certificate. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts alone are sufficient to acknowledge that a guarantee contract has been established between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the guarantee contract has been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion seeking the

3. However, according to the above facts, even if the above non-party 1 presented each of the above payment guarantee certificates issued with false content, he knew that it was not paid even if it was issued with the above payment guarantee letter issued with the above false content, the above non-party 1 had the plaintiff believe that each of the above payment guarantee certificates was lawfully issued with the bank's credit and could be paid without the mold. However, the above non-party 1's act of issuing each of the above payment guarantee certificates and the payment guarantee money was objectively viewed as having a close relation with the payment guarantee business, which is one of the original duties, as the head of the bank branch, and it was seen as belonging to the scope of trade duties, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above intentional act committed by the non-party 1 as an employer in the course of performing his duties.

Meanwhile, according to each of the above evidence, the plaintiff stated entirely differently from the facts, such as that the guarantee office of each of the above payment guarantee forms a crime-specific fishery, not the plaintiff, and the terms and conditions of the payment guarantee in its side do not bear any guarantee liability for any obligation other than the original purchase price obligation actually existing, and even though the payment guarantee is prohibited from transferring it, it may be recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant bank will have no problem with the above non-party 1's oral statement without investigating or confirming whether the payment guarantee contract in accordance with the above payment guarantee was lawfully formed or not, and that the payment guarantee contract was delivered as above. Since such negligence of the plaintiff is deemed to have caused the damage of this case, it shall be considered in determining the scope of the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, it shall be considered as 20/100.

Furthermore, regarding the scope of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff, the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the said deception by Nonparty 1 is KRW 567,60,000,000 that the Plaintiff contributed to the Plaintiff due to the said tort by Nonparty 1 (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da321, Jan. 21, 1969). However, considering the Plaintiff’s negligence recognized above, the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate is KRW 454,080,00 (amounting to KRW 567,60,000 x 80/100).

4. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 454,080,000 won and damages for delay for the amount of 454,000 won and damages for delay after the date of the illegal act of this case, 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from August 28, 191 to December 4, 191, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, 25% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 5, 191 to the date following the date of delivery of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 5, 191. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and 10 minutes are

Judges Goh-hee (Presiding Judge)