Whether the bank is liable to use the personal money of the head of the bank; or

In a case where the head of a bank has issued a loan certificate in the name of the branch office, and borrowed money from an individual and consumed it voluntarily, it cannot be said that the bank borrowed money from an individual who is not a financial institution. Therefore, such an act cannot be viewed as an act related to the execution of business of the head of the bank.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1038 delivered on October 30, 1970 (Kakadd. 9217; Supreme Court Decision 18Third citizen234; Decision 756(69)58 delivered on the summary of the decision, Article 12(6)74 of the Check Act, Article 12(74) of the Civil Code

Korea Machinery Industry Corporation

The Bank of Korea, Inc.

Seoul Central District Court (73 Gohap1502) in the first instance trial

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1169 delivered on November 12, 1974

The plaintiff's preliminary claim is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(The main claim is already final and conclusive as against the plaintiff)

(Preliminary Claim)

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000 and the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from the day following the day when the service is made soar to the day when the service is completed.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5-4 (each loan certificate), 1,2,37 (written evidence, record marks, judgment), 1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-3 (written application form), 4-4, and 5-4 respectively, the court below's testimony, 2-1 and 0-1 and 0-2 shall be issued to the plaintiff at the time of borrowing the above 0-1 and 0-2 (written application form), and the other 0-1 and 0-2 shall be issued at the time of borrowing the above 0-1 and the other 0-10-2 shall be issued at the time of borrowing the above 0-1 and the other 0-2 shall be issued at the time of borrowing the above 0-1 and the other 0-2 shall be issued at the time of borrowing the above 0-1 and the other 0-2 shall be issued at the time of borrowing the above 0-1 and the other 0-10-2 shall be issued at the above 0-10-2 of the above 0-2 loan units.

The plaintiff, as a preliminary claim, alleged that the non-party 2, who was the manager of the defendant bank, requested the plaintiff to use the funds at the defendant bank's shop, where the plaintiff believed that the non-party 2's act of borrowing the funds is the original business of the defendant bank, and was issued with the above loan certificate prepared and delivered in the name of the defendant bank at least in the non-party 3 thesis where the defendant bank was the vice head of the defendant bank, the defendant bank is in a close relation with the defendant bank's original business operation, and as long as the non-party 2 had a close relation with the defendant bank's original business operation, the defendant bank is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as the non-party 2's employer as long as the non-party 2 did not pay the above share sheet to the plaintiff. However, as acknowledged above, since the defendant bank's main office of the defendant bank could not be viewed to have borrowed the funds from the plaintiff for an emergency purpose of the defendant bank, it cannot be viewed that the bank was an act of borrowing the funds from the non-party 2's bank.

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judge Noh Jeong-gu (Presiding Judge)