Whether or not a securities company has a duty of care to inquire into the issuing bank whether or not the issuance of a large amount of financial bonds is lawful at the time of purchase by an individual.

When a securities company, the main business of which is the sale, purchase, etc. of securities, pays a high-amount financial bond with a face value of KRW 10,000,000 or above at its face value and purchases from the general public, it is obligated to pay attention to whether it has been lawfully issued or whether it is an accident bond.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff Securities Company

Defendant Bank

Seoul Civil History District Court (83 Gohap6455)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Action Action

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000 with five percent per annum from October 1, 1983 to the delivery date of the instant gushes, and the amount at the rate of twenty-five percent per annum from the next to the next to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

Preliminary Claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 9,857,00 won and the amount of 5% per annum from August 26, 1983 to the delivery date of the instant gushes, and the amount at the rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the next day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

In principle, the judgment of the court below on the plaintiff's claim is revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000 with five percent per annum from October 1, 1983 to the delivery date of the instant gushes, and the amount at the rate of twenty-five percent per annum from the next to the next to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

Preliminary claim: The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 1,971,400 won and the amount of 5 percent per annum from August 26, 1983 to the delivery date of the instant gushes, and the amount at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the next day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

1. Judgment on the main claim

The plaintiff, as the cause of the claim of this case, purchased 10,00 won from the non-party 1, September 30, 1982, the date of issuance, and 1 copy of the defendant financial bonds which were unregistered on September 30, 1983, and claimed that the defendant who is the issuer of the above bonds seek payment of KRW 10,00,00 which is the face value of the above bonds, from the non-party 2's original issuance of the above 7-day financial bonds at the above 4-day branch office's above 7-day office's above 7-day office's above 9-day office's above 9-day office's new financial bonds' 7-day office's above 9-day office's new financial bonds' 9-day office's new financial bonds' 7-day office's above 9-day office's new financial bonds' above 9-day office's new financial bonds' 10-day office's above 9-day office's new financial bonds's 1.

Thus, since the above claim is forged by the non-party 5, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless on the premise that the claim is duly issued by the defendant.

In addition, the plaintiff, as the vice head of the Daegu Central Branch of the defendant Bank, comprehensively assist the head of the branch and has basic power of attorney to act on behalf of the head of the branch, even if he issued the above bonds in the name of the head of the above branch, the non-party 1 purchased the above bonds in the name of the non-party 5 at a normal transaction price (e.g., 9,017,000) within the above branch, so the non-party 1 believed that the non-party 5 is entitled to issue the above bonds, and there was a justifiable reason for reliance on this. Thus, although the defendant asserted that the non-party 1 is liable to pay the above amount of bonds in accordance with the legal principles of expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Code, there is no evidence to prove that the non-party 1 purchased the above bonds

In addition, the plaintiff alleged that he purchased the above bonds, which are bearer securities, in the securities market open to the public in good faith and with good faith, and thus he bona fide acquired the above rights to the financial bonds, but since the above bonds were forged by Nonparty 5, it is recognized as above, it did not have the above rights to the above bonds. Accordingly, this is not subject to bona fide acquisition, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

On August 23, 1983, the plaintiff believed that the non-party 5, a Daegu Central Branch of the defendant Bank, was properly issued on the securities exchange and purchased the above bonds in KRW 9,857,00,00 from the non-party 1, and paid the above bonds on the 25th of the same month, and there is no counter-proof that the damage equivalent to the above bonds was suffered by the plaintiff due to the above illegal acts related to the non-party 5's execution of duties, as the employer of the non-party 5, who is the non-party 5, who is the employer of the non-party 5, who is the non-party 5.

However, in full view of the whole purport of the argument in the evidence above, the plaintiff, who is a securities company that mainly engages in sales and purchase of securities, must pay a high-amount financial claim of 10,000,000 won above the face value to the defendant bank with due care, such as whether it will be lawfully issued or whether it is an accident bond if purchased from the ordinary individual, but it is found that the non-party 6's testimony portion of the witness non-party 6 cannot be trusted in light of the non-party 3's testimony, and there is no counter-proof otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff's negligence was caused by the above damage. Considering this, the amount of damage that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff should be determined as 7,885,600 won (=9,857,000 x80/100).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant shall accept the plaintiff's claim of this case only within the extent of the above recognition, and all of the plaintiff's main claims and other conjunctive claims are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal of this case is dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff's loss of delay at the rate of 5 percent per annum from August 26, 1983 to the full payment date (the plaintiff shall claim payment of damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day of service so that the plaintiff is entitled to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation.

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-ro, Kim Jong-ho