[1] In a case where the official in charge of withdrawal from a bank pays a deposit to a person without authority without knowing the fact that the person in charge of withdrawal from the bank was not a legitimate applicant if he had done his ordinary care even if the seal and password were reported on the request for deposit payment, whether the payment is valid (negative)

[2] In a case where an employee of a financial institution who had no intention or negligence as a result of withdrawal of a deposit with a certificate of deposit by a person who is not a deposit holder receives contact with another financial institution to verify whether the certificate of deposit was issued genuinely from another financial institution, whether the employee is obligated to notify the deposit owner of such fact

[3] The case holding that in a case where a person, other than a depositor, withdraws a deposit with the passbook and is issued a certificate of deposit, the bank's intention or negligence cannot be acknowledged on the ground that the bank could not be seen as having known whether the bank was a legitimate agent of the depositor when the password was leaked or if he was ordinarily able to do so in light of all circumstances

[1] Articles 470 and 702 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 470 and 702 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 470 and 702 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Bank (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na8292 decided Feb. 2, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the divulgence of passwords

After citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below stated that the non-party 1 was investigated by the prosecutor's office that the non-party 2, who was an employee of the plaintiff company, sent the secret number of the plaintiff company's account (the account number omitted, hereinafter "the non-party 2") to the non-party 3 at the point of March 26, 2003 (hereinafter "the non-party 3's paper") and then that the non-party 3 was informed of the secret number of the plaintiff's account at the time of opening the non-party 4's account. The court below stated that the non-party 4's representative director was able to receive the non-party 7's secret number from the non-party 4 or the non-party 2's employee's secret number, and that the non-party 3's secret number was not known to the non-party 4's bank account, and that the non-party 3's secret number was not known to the plaintiff 1's bank account.

Examining the evidence submitted in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the duty of explanation, and incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the violation of occupational duty of care in withdrawing deposits and issuing transferable certificates of deposit

The seal imprinted and reported by the officer in charge of withdrawal of a bank are identical to the seal imprinted and reported in the request for deposit payment, and even if the password was the same as the one reported, if the bank paid a deposit to a person without authority without knowing the fact that he/she was not a legitimate applicant if he/she was not a legitimate applicant for deposit due to negligence, the payment does not become effective.

In light of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 was aware of the fact that the non-party 1 was taking over the plaintiff's company, and the non-party 7 and the non-party 1 did not actually enter into a contract for purchase of the plaintiff's company's shares and management rights, and the non-party 1 knew that the non-party 1 was the non-party 2's employee's non-party 1 visited the defendant's closing point on March 26, 200 and confirmed the opening of the account. The non-party 1 did not know that the non-party 1 was an employee of the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2's bank account, and that the non-party 1 was not a legitimate owner of the non-party 4's bank account after the date of opening the account, and that the non-party 1 was not a legitimate manager of the plaintiff's bank account, and that the non-party 1 was not a legitimate manager of the plaintiff's bank account.

Examining the above legal principles and the evidence submitted in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any misapprehension of legal principles as to the degree of duty of care necessary for financial institutions to trade with persons who are not the depositors as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the other argument

A. The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and determined that even if the employee of the defendant branch was informed of the details of the deposit in this case to the non-party 1, the non-party 1 was holding the passbook of this case, so it could be confirmed at any time through the settlement of passbook, so it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff company suffered losses from the plaintiff's assertion due to the above act of the employees of the defendant branch office.

Even if the employee of the defendant's branch office informed Nonparty 1 of the details of the deposit in this case, it is not possible for Nonparty 1 to withdraw the deposit in this case's account solely on such circumstance, and only when Nonparty 1 requested to withdraw the deposit and withdrawn the deposit at the defendant's branch office, it is possible to withdraw the deposit. Thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the act of notifying Nonparty 1 of the details of the deposit in this case's account and the act of withdrawing the deposit in this case's account's account's account's account's account's account's account's account's account's account's account's account's account's account's account'

B. If there is no intention or negligence on the part of an employee of a financial institution in the course of withdrawing a deposit in substitution with a certificate of deposit by a person who is not a depositor, it cannot be deemed that the employee of a financial institution has a duty to notify such fact to the depositor, barring special circumstances, even though he/she was informed by another financial institution to seek confirmation as to whether the above certificate

As seen earlier, Nonparty 1’s withdrawal of deposit from the instant account and issuance of the certificate of deposit. As such, even if the employees of the Defendant branch were to contact the employees of the Defendant branch with other financial institutions to seek confirmation as to whether the said certificate of deposit was issued genuinely from another financial institution, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff company is obligated to notify the said fact. The allegation in the grounds of appeal on a different premise is without merit.

C. According to the records, since the non-party 4 was appointed as the representative director of the plaintiff company on March 26, 2003 and was dismissed on September 22, 2003, the court below is just in holding that the representative director of the plaintiff company was non-party 4 from March 27, 2003 to April 1, 2003, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)