beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The employees of Defendant Bank opened the instant account under the name of the Plaintiff A in violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and the Banking Act, and issued a passbook under the name of the Plaintiff A to D to allow D to use the passbook. In addition, the employees of Defendant Bank violated the financial business standards and the rules on the receipt and management of bank regulations, thereby allowing D to use the passbook. In addition, the employees of Defendant Bank to repay the loan through a exchange that is impossible to delegate to others (hereinafter “alternative exchange business”).
(2) The embezzlement of this case constitutes “financial accident” under Article 41 of the Inspection Regulations, which occurred in the course of performing the duties of employees of the Defendant bank, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed liable to compensate the Plaintiff A for the amount of KRW 370,00,000 by deceiving the Plaintiffs as if the Plaintiff was liable to compensate the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiffs were to compensate for damages on behalf of the Defendant without any legal cause, the Defendant is liable to return the said amount of KRW 370,00,000 to the Plaintiffs, even if the Defendant did not recognize the obligation to return unjust enrichment to the Defendant even if the Defendant did not recognize the obligation to return unjust enrichment to the Defendant, the loan agreement of this case constitutes a juristic act or an unfair juristic act contrary to social order, or was concluded by mistake of the Plaintiffs.
As long as the loan agreement of this case is null and void or cancelled, each establishment registration of mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet is also required.