1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant bank, as the employer, is liable for damages, since the defendant bank, C, C, E, from February 8, 2013 to January 6, 2014, acquired a total of KRW 123,500,000 from the plaintiff A, and KRW 88,00,000 from the plaintiff B.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an employee’s unlawful act is objectively deemed to be related to the employee’s business activity, performance of duties, or performance of duties, which is an element for an employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, the term “business performance” shall be deemed to be an act performed without considering the actor’s subjective circumstances. The issue of whether it is objectively related to the performance of duties of the employee should be determined by taking into account the degree of the employee’s inherent duties and tort, the degree of the employee’s occurrence of risks and the degree of the employer’

In addition, even if the illegal act of an employee appears to fall within the scope of external execution of business affairs, if the victim himself/herself knew, or was unaware of the fact that the act of the employee does not fall under the act of execution of business affairs by the supervisor on behalf of the employer or employer, he/she may not be held liable for the employer to the supervisor on behalf of the employer or employer. In this case, gross negligence refers to the situation where the other party to the transaction knew, if he/she had paid a little amount of money, that the act of the employee was not legitimate within his/her official authority. However, even though the other party to the transaction, he/she could have known that it was not a violation of the duty of care required by the general public by believing it as an act within his/her authority

In particular, financial institutions.