If the head of a bank branch causes damage to another person by issuing a guarantee agreement in excess of his authority, the bank shall be liable for such damage as the employer.

A. Where the head of a branch office, who is the manager of a bank, issues and loans a payment guarantee agreement with the head of the Monetary Board Regulations or the head of the bank to guarantee the payment of a certain amount on behalf of a specific person, the act is an evasion of the original authority of the head of the branch office. However, the act is closely related to the original duties of the head of the branch office, and at least is considered as the execution of the original duties.

B. In addition to the above rank guarantee agreement, the head of the above branch office has issued several copies of the payment guarantee agreement prior thereto, and some of them were approved on the agreed date, the bank shall not be deemed to have taken appropriate measures to prevent the issuance of the above payment guarantee agreement, and the bank shall not be deemed to have paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of the head of the branch office that is an employee.

Article 756(1) of the Civil Act

Hybane

Korean Commercial Bank Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2177 delivered on January 19, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2177 delivered on January 19, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

Article 756 of the Civil Code provides that the above act should be objectively determined by the appearance of the above act, which is the precedent of the court below, because the court below's decision was duly adopted, the non-party 1, as the manager of the defendant bank, who was the head of the beneficiary branch office of the defendant bank, stated on October 26, 1965 that the payment guarantee amount of KRW 2,00,000 shall be paid to the non-party limited partnership's central office official, and the payment guarantee date of KRW 2,00,00,00 shall be indicated on November 27, 1965 as large materials for the purpose of payment guarantee and the above amount shall be paid as redemption on the payment guarantee date, and that the non-party's act of issuing the above payment guarantee agreement shall be within the scope of the non-party's official duty and the defendant's act of issuing the above amount shall be within the scope of the non-party's official duty and it shall be within the scope of the non-party's official duty and it shall be within the non-party's official duty of payment guarantee.

The plaintiff's loss in the second case is that there is no proximate causal relation with the defendant's employee's act. However, as the original judgment recognized lawful, the plaintiff's loss in this case is the plaintiff's loss in this case as the plaintiff believed and lent 1,910,000 won to the non-party 1's president of the central public official's office, which is the defendant's employee, and therefore, it is reasonable that such an act and loss are related to the person who caused the loss, and it cannot be said that there was any error of finding that the defendant's employer is the amount of loss that should be compensated. Thus,

No. 3 Although according to the purport that the Plaintiff was negligent on the part of the Plaintiff as to the occurrence of the Plaintiff and the damages, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff acquired the payment guarantee agreement in this case with the knowledge that it was unlawful, and the original judgment does not have any more than the limit of the loan at that time, and since banks including the Dong branch of the Defendant Bank cannot make a loan because the limit of the loan at that time was set, they actually issued the above payment guarantee agreement in order to look at the convenience of the use of the loan to the business customers, and they were approved on the payment date through the exchange of bills, and the Plaintiff did not accept the payment on the payment date on October 27, 1965 through Nonparty 2, who was the vice head of the Seoul Bank at the time of its business transaction, through Nonparty 1, the vice head of the Seoul Bank, and even before that payment date, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff obtained the payment on the payment date, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any error in the judgment below's finding that there was no error in finding that the payment was made on the payment date.

According to the purport that the defendant was fully responsible for compensating for the plaintiff's losses since he was fully responsible for supervising the appointment of the non-party 1, as seen above, it cannot be said that the non-party 1 issued several copies of a guarantee agreement other than the letter of guarantee of payment in this case, and some of them were approved on the agreed date. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant did not take reasonable measures so that he did not issue the said letter of guarantee of payment in spite of the closing date, so it cannot be said that he had paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of the affairs of the non-party 1 who is an employee. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there was any error in the original judgment with the purport that the defendant had paid considerable attention to supervising the affairs of the defendant's regular or occasional affairs or directions or directions. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, and it is so decided as per Disposition as per Disposition.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)