A. The meaning of "as to the execution of affairs" under Article 756 of the Civil Code and the criteria for its determination

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the rate of the negligence of the depositor is significantly less than 10% where an employee of another financial institution withdraws or embezzled the deposit of a customer;

A. The phrase "in relation to the execution of an employee's business, which is the requirement for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act," means that if an employee's unlawful act appears objectively to be an employee's business activity, an act of performing an employee's business, or related thereto, it shall be deemed that such an act was performed without considering subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the employee's performance of an employee's business should be determined by considering the degree of the employee's inherent duty and tort, the degree of the employee's occurrence of risks to the

(b) In a case where an employee of a financial institution embezzled withdrawal of deposits deposited by another financial institution which is a customer, the case reversed the judgment of the court below which held that the ratio of negligence by the financial institution which neglected to take verification measures is considerably less than 10%, on the ground that the transaction passbook and the written claim for deposits with which the seal imprint affixed are delivered in a lump

(a) Article 756(b) of the Civil Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Da39146 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 1143). Supreme Court Decision 92Da25939 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 2982), 94Da34272 delivered on November 18, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 53), 94Da43115 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1154). (b) Supreme Court Decision 91Da32190 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong192, 1996)

Attorney Park Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Investment Trust Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Kim & Lee, Attorneys Kim In-bok et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na76 delivered on June 22, 1994

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the ancillary claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 was engaged in the business of attracting funds through consultation with his customers at the time of this case’s closing of deposits with the non-party 1 and the non-party 1’s own account at the time of this case’s closing of deposits with the non-party 6 bank account, and the principal method of distributing the funds deposited by the defendant company to the non-party 1 was anticipated to decrease the market price of shares after depositing the funds to the non-party 1’s own account at the time of this case’s closing of deposits with the non-party 6 bank account. The non-party 1 and the non-party 6 bank account’s personal seal impression at the time of this case’s closing of deposits with the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were distributed to the non-party 6 bank account at the time of this case’s closing of deposits with the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were distributed to the non-party 9 bank account at the time of this case’s closing of deposits.

2. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the records and comparison of the evidence prepared by the court below, the court below's finding of the above facts is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, and if the facts are identical to the above, even though considering the situation before and after the accident of this case, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff comprehensively delegated to the non-party 1 the authority to manage the above deposit including the transaction by the method of discount of the bill discount with the non-party 1. Thus, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law as pointed out. The argument is without merit.

3. On the second and fourth grounds

The phrase "in relation to the execution of business", which is an element for the employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that if an employee's unlawful act appears objectively to be related to the employee's business activities, office performance, or performance of business, without considering subjective circumstances, it shall be deemed to be an act performed without considering such subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the employee's work and tort, and whether it is objectively related to the employee's work performance, or to the degree of the employee's responsibility for creating risks and failing to take preventive measures against losses (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da39146 delivered on February 25, 192). According to the facts duly established by the court below, the non-party Kim Il-il's employee's employee's withdrawal of the employee's deposit and embezzlement of the employee's deposit with the head of the Tong and his seal affixed in the course of performing his duties for managing the customer's deposit, it shall be deemed to be a tort related to the defendant's business activities or operation. It is just and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the duty.

4. On the third and fifth grounds for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the defendant's defense that there was no error in the appointment and supervision of the non-party 1, who is his employee, in relation to the accident of this case, was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge it, and that the plaintiff's act as stated in its decision, such as accepting at will a bill discounted by the non-party 1 after the accident of this case or establishing other security, cannot be viewed as a ratification of the act of the non-party 1's bill of exchange, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ratification of the act of non-party 1. All arguments are without merit.

5. On the sixth ground for appeal

Based on such evidences, the court below acknowledged the fact that an employee in accordance with the business rules is prohibited from keeping a customer's passbook and seal, and even if the plaintiff company was able to have sufficiently known it, he left the passbook, etc. as seen above to the non-party 1, despite the fact that the employee did not request the certificate of balance inevitably required when preparing the probation sheet every month after November 1990, or should have confirmed the amount entrusted to the non-party 1 at least for nine months after leaving the passbook, etc., but neglected without taking any measures for the nine months after leaving the passbook, etc., and thereby caused the accident. The court below ordered the plaintiff to compensate the defendant for 90% of the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff, considering the plaintiff's negligence as 10% in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant due to the occurrence of the damage in this case.

However, in light of the Plaintiff’s above negligence and the circumstances leading up to the accident of this case established by the court below, even if it is acknowledged that the Defendant had failed to educate or supervise the employees of this case, unlike ordinary customers, the Plaintiff, who can be well aware of the risk of financial accidents, if he/she takes charge of the passbook, etc. as a financial institution, has been transferred to the point of transaction by leading the personal-friendly relationship with Nonparty 1 and his/her representative members to the point of transaction, while maintaining a close relationship with Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff provided fundamental causes of this case by delivering 50 copies or more of the written request for deposit with which the entire passbook and seal imprint affixed, and Nonparty 1 did not take any confirmation measures to withdraw and embezzled the deposit over 16 times, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s negligence did not go against the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da1391469, Feb. 25, 192; 2000Da1962969, Feb. 19.

6. Therefore, the part against the Defendant regarding the conjunctive claim of the lower judgment is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)