[1] The degree of the duty of care required for a financial institution to open and transfer a deposit account to a person in the principal or his/her agent, and whether a proximate causal link exists between the violation of the financial institution's duty of care and the occurrence of the loss in a case where the money to be received by the recipient was transferred to the original account as a result of failure to take such measures (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a proximate causal relationship is acknowledged between a bank employee's breach of the duty of care and the occurrence of damages equivalent to the above amount, in case where a bank employee opened a bank account in the name of the person under parent's name without confirming whether the employee was the person under parent's name, thereby allowing an employee of the person under parent's name to receive money from a third party who was just for the person under parent's name and embezzlement

[1] The deposit account opened in a financial institution is not merely used by a person who opened such account to deposit or collect money, but also actively used as a means to collect or repay bonds, debts, etc. which he/she acquired or came to have with respect to a third party in daily life or business activities due to the activation of credit transactions and the development of the online remittance and fund transfer system. Thus, if a financial institution opens a deposit account with its own person or his/her agent and does not fully perform the minimum verification procedure such as confirmation of his/her identification card or receipt of proxy certificate and verification of his/her agent identification card in the process of opening the deposit account, it can be easily predicted that the crime of receiving money can be easily conducted by the person who received money through the method of money under a contract with which the person was duly established by the person under whose name he/she did not have any duty of due care to receive money from the third party by deceiving the money from the criminal act or the person who has an appropriate position to prevent the above type of damage to the bank account is not in charge of the duty to receive money from such criminal act or the victim's own account.

[2] The case holding that a proximate causal relation is acknowledged between a bank employee's breach of the duty of care and the occurrence of damages equivalent to the above amount, in case where a bank employee opened a bank account in the name of the person under parent's name without confirming whether the employee was the person under parent's name, thereby allowing an employee of the person under parent's name to receive money from a third party who was just for the person under parent's name and embezzlement

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da54599 Decided January 13, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 226) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da21821 Decided July 13, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1257)

Plaintiff (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Bank (Law Firm Jinho, Attorneys Yoon Won-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2003Na4523 delivered on April 8, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on proximate causal relation with the duty of care when opening the deposit account of a financial institution

A. The deposit account opened in a financial institution is not simply used by a person who opened the account in order to deposit or withdraw money, but also actively used as a means to collect or repay bonds, debts, etc. that he/she acquired or came to have in with respect to a third party in daily life or business activities due to the activation of credit transactions and the development of the online remittance and fund transfer system. If a financial institution opens a deposit account and carries out all of the minimum confirmation procedures such as confirmation of its identity cards or receipt of power of attorney and certificate of personal seal impression in the process of opening the deposit account, it can be easily predicted that the crime of receiving money can be easily conducted by the person who acquired money under the name of the person who opened the account in question through the method of transferring money to the bank account under the name of the person who opened the account. Since the person who opened the account in an appropriate position to prevent such type of damage is not in charge of the business of the person who acquired money from the account in question under the name of the third party, the person who received money from the account should not be able to receive the money from such criminal act in its own name.

B. In light of the above legal principles and the records, it is not appropriate that the court below found the grounds for the error that Nonparty 1, an employee of the defendant bank neglected to confirm his own or his agent's tort liability in violation of the obligation to verify identity under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality. However, although Nonparty 1 had a duty of care to verify whether the applicant for the opening of the plaintiff's deposit passbook and the person who caused the receipt of the plaintiff's deposit passbook was the plaintiff himself or legally delegated by the plaintiff, he did not confirm it at all, the court below directly prepare the plaintiff's resident registration certificate delivered by Nonparty 2 through his husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's name and the application for the normal deposit and cash withdrawal card with the ordinary deposit account in the plaintiff's name (hereinafter "the bank account in this case"), and delivered it to Nonparty 2, who was the plaintiff's employee, requested the insurance company of this case to transfer medical expenses to the bank account in this case, and thus, it is not reasonable to acknowledge the reasonable proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's deposit account and the defendant's trust account's damages.

2. As to the ground of appeal on offsetting negligence

The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da62251, 6268, Jan. 8, 2002, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was an error of misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence since the recognition of comparative negligence ratio by the court below seems to be remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and 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 Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)