A case which recognizes the establishment of an expression agency where the bank agency forges a payment guarantee certificate without delegation by the head of a bank branch office.

If an agent of a bank with power of representation within a certain scope, such as issuing cashier's checks on behalf of the head of a branch office, prepares a payment guarantee letter used by the bank without delegation by the head of a branch office and issues it to the obligor, and the obligor obtains a loan from the obligee as security, and the obligee confirms that a payment guarantee certificate has been issued to the bank at the time of the loan by telephone, the obligee is bound to believe that it has been issued lawfully, and therefore, the

Article 126 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu Korea Mutual Savings Bank, Inc.

Daedong Bank, Inc.

1. The defendant shall pay 298,956,575 won to the plaintiff and twenty-five percent per annum from July 9, 1993 to the date of full payment.

shall pay the amount by proportion.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Provisional execution shall be limited to the amount equivalent to 2/3 of the amount under paragraph (1).

The same as the disposition (However, the complaint is claiming damages for delay from the date of service, but it appears to be erroneous.

(c).

1. Basic facts

Evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 2-1 through 8, evidence No. 3.4, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 12-1, 2, 13-1, 2, 3, evidence No. 15-1 through 10, evidence No. 23-5, evidence No. 24-1, 25, evidence No. 30, evidence No. 32-1 through 5, evidence No. 39, evidence No. 34, 38-1, 2, 39-1, 3, evidence No. 12, 1-7, 8, 9, and 5-1 of the evidence No. 12, evidence No. 15-2, evidence No. 15-2, evidence No. 30, evidence No. 30, evidence No. 34, evidence No. 35, evidence No. 38-1, evidence No. 4, evidence No.

A. From March 27, 1989 to 373, the non-party Lee Jong-dong, Daegu Nowon-gu operated the new engineering of machinery manufacturing chain. On September 1992, the non-party Lee Jong-dong appointed the non-party Lee Jong-young as the chief of the general affairs division of the new engineering and had him manage the funds management, banking affairs, and general affairs of the company. The non-party Lee Jong-dong, Daegu-dong, 373, the non-party Lee Jong-dong, and had him manage the affairs of the general affairs of the company.

This paper: (a) On April 12, 1993, 193, e.g., a bill transaction agreement with a maximum amount of KRW 500,000,000, and a bill transaction agreement with a maximum amount of KRW 16,762,061; (b) a bill with a face value of KRW 16,762,061 issued by Samyang Co., Ltd., a listed corporation, was discounted on March 19, 193 on April 30, 1993.

B. Around April 20, 1993, Lee Jong-chul made a loan agreement on whether to grant a loan of KRW 300,000,000 as an installment payment grace loan with less financial burden, by making a preferential payment for interest only by taking a payment guarantee letter issued by the Defendant bank to the grandchildren in charge of the loan of the Plaintiff’s Treasury through an authorized seat.

Accordingly, the report to the superior, and the representative, the vice head, and the head of the division of the plaintiff's credit cooperative's business inside, the plaintiff's credit cooperative determined the following policies and notified this content to the person with the authority, and the person with the authority to receive the disbursement within the number of days.

In other words, although the payment guarantee letter issued by the bank is more favorable to the recovery and management of the claim, the first transaction was conducted on April 12, 1993 as above, although it was merely favorable to the recovery of the claim and management of the bank, the loan can be made if the bank's payment guarantee letter is offered as security for the above loan counseling (the previous transaction was completed with the Plaintiff's depository branch prior to April 12, 1993, but the business division of the head office was the first transaction, and the business division of the head office was the first transaction). However, the loan condition is difficult to pay 250,000,000 won with interest only on the total amount of the loan, and it is 50,000,000 won with a deferred loan.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s Treasury did not inform the Defendant Bank of the prior decision to implement the loan or received from the Defendant Bank of the prior decision to grant the loan, after consulting the obligor on the possibility of the loan by means of the payment guarantee and the type, amount, etc. of the loan.

C. After completing the loan consultation as above, this case's payment guarantee certificate issued in the name of the head of the defendant bank Sporo branch office around 10:00 on April 26, 1993 (hereinafter in this case's payment guarantee certificate issued in the name of the head of the defendant bank's Sporo branch office). The main contents of this guarantee certificate are that the date of issuance is April 26, 1993. The creditor, the debtor, the debtor, the debtor, the guarantor, the type of loan guarantee, the principal debt of the defendant bank and the principal debt of the defendant bank, the guarantee bond of 300,000,000, the guarantee bond of April 26, 1994 can be claimed prior to the final payment, and the performance place of the guaranteed debt can be called the defendant bank's sex branch).

According to the provision on the payment guarantee of the Defendant Bank, the payment guarantee certificate is issued in accordance with the letter of guarantee prescribed in the name of the operating store (the principal obligation and the name of the creditor) after receiving loan consultation and loan application, payment guarantee transaction agreement, blank bill and application for payment guarantee, and other necessary documents from the clients, and in principle, the letter of guarantee is issued in the name of the principal obligation manager. The letter of guarantee issuance is requested upon the request of the issuance of the letter of guarantee certificate. The letter of guarantee payment shall be entered in the certificate of payment guarantee issued (the receipt of the principal certificate) with the approval of the deputy head and the head of the branch office, and the letter of guarantee shall be affixed by the deputy head and the head of the branch office

However, the payment guarantee of this case was forged by a non-party who was the agent in charge of lending a loan for a branch office in the name of the defendant bank. In other words, on April 14, 1993, the non-party, who was delegated by the head of the branch office with the authority to issue cashier's checks on behalf of the head of the branch office, issued a new payment guarantee for extension of the due date to the non-party Lee Jin-in on the part of the non-party on April 14, 1993, and arranged a new payment guarantee certificate for the extension of the due date, and written the payment guarantee certificate for the non-party to the defendant bank, which was deducted from the form of the payment guarantee for the non-party to the non-party bank,

D. The Plaintiff’s credit cooperative did not know that the instant payment guarantee certificate was forged by the Nonparty. However, according to ordinary practice, the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative asked by telephone at the lending center of the Defendant Bank from around 10:35 days to verify whether the payment guarantee certificate was issued properly. The Plaintiff’s credit cooperative asked by telephone at the loan center of the Defendant Bank from around 10:35. The Nonparty’s credit bank immediately decided to grant a loan as security without viewing a lawful payment guarantee certificate that the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative was completely forged, i.e., all documents pertaining to the loan of KRW 300,000,000 and KRW 50,000,000,000, and KRW 300,000,0000,000,0000 annually, and 10:50,000,0000,000, 250,50,0000,005,000,005,05,00.

However, this paper, however, prepares the documents as above and, as a result, has a different bad condition before the loan was created, and the loan amount of KRW 300,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s Treasury, which is the loan amount of KRW 6,915,000,000, which is the interest rate of KRW 190,000, was paid directly to the interest rate of KRW 292,895,00,00, which is the interest rate of KRW 6,915,00.

As such, on April 26, 1993, KRW 292,895,00 of the loan was paid KRW 50,000,000 in total, 292,000,000 in cash and KRW 895,000 in cash. Of the cash paid by cashier's checks, KRW 192,00,000 in 192,000 in 292,000 in 20,000 in 292,000 in 292,000 in 30,000 in 192,00 in 192,00 in 192,00 in 192,00 in 20,00 in 30,000 in 30,000 in 30,000 in 30,000 in 30,00 in 30,000 in 30,00 in 30.

In addition, on May 11, 1993, at the Plaintiff’s Treasury, the details of the installment loan were inquiredd to the Lee Jong-chul, but the Lee Jong-chul did not give any reply, and it indirectly expressed that he did not object to the said installment loan (such as this, the Lee Jong-chul was granted a loan of KRW 300,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s Treasury, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion denying this is accepted.

(b).

E. After that, on June 2, 1993, a report of financial accidents by the Nonparty was made in the Daegu Metropolitan City daily newspaper, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative again asked the Defendant bank to issue the instant payment guarantee letter, whether it would be denied the issuance of the instant payment guarantee certificate, as well as the fact that the scrap metal was unable to receive a partial loan for its own debt, and thus, it was subject to a disposition to suspend current account transactions on June 5, 1993 while denying the loan.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Treasury stated KRW 298,956,575 in the claim column for the amount of the instant payment guarantee letter after deducting the installment paid by Lee Jong-chul. On June 10, 1993, the Defendant Bank rejected payment on the ground that the following payment guarantee was forged.

2. Whether liability for payment guarantee exists; and

The plaintiff asserts that as long as the payment guarantee of this case was issued by the non-party who was engaged in the business of issuing a payment guarantee letter on behalf of the head of the branch as the lending agent of the Defendant bank's Sychomatic branch, the Defendant bank should be responsible for the payment guarantee as

However, as seen above, the letter of payment guarantee is issued by a branch office. Accordingly, even if it was issued after the head of a branch office having a person in charge of the preparation work, the person having authority to prepare the letter of payment guarantee at will without being delegated by the head of a branch office, and as long as the Nonparty arbitrarily prepared and forged the letter of payment guarantee of this case without being delegated by the head of a branch office, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant bank paid a payment guarantee for the obligations of the non-party.

3. Determination as to the expression representation

A. However, the payment guarantee of this case, on behalf of the head of a branch office, was issued in the name of the non-party acting on behalf of the head of the branch office within a certain scope, such as the issuance of cashier's checks, and was made in the name of the head of the branch office without delegation of the head of the branch office. However, it was written in the form of the payment guarantee letter used by the defendant bank, but it was made in the form of the payment guarantee letter used by the defendant bank. The plaintiff's treasury believed that it was duly issued by the defendant bank through telephone confirmation procedure, and thus, the plaintiff's treasury is bound to believe that the payment guarantee certificate of this case was issued by the person with authority to do so, and therefore, the defendant bank shall not be held liable for

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that since the plaintiff's credit cooperative acquired the guarantee certificate of this case as security without recognizing that it was prepared by the non-party, it was not aware of the existence of the representative act itself. In relation to the plaintiff's credit cooperative, there is no room for establishment of a representation agent because there is no representation act. However, the defendant bank issued a guarantee certificate that bears the responsibility for payment guarantee and provided it to the debtor through it to the creditor through it. If the guarantee certificate of payment is proved to be delayed after it was prepared by the non-authorized person, if there is a certain basic authority, the guarantee certificate under the name of the person who prepared it cannot be deemed to have been prepared by the authorized person, and thus, it would be possible to hold the person responsible in accordance with the legal principles of an

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted that, on the grounds delineated below, the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative acquired the instant payment guarantee certificate as security, it would not have any justifiable reason to believe that it was issued by a person with authority to do so, and thus, it should be viewed as having been examined in sequence.

(1) On April 12, 1993, in the business division of the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative, the former transaction with the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative was not confirmed, and the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative’s employees did not comply with the business regulations or conduct inappropriate business operations. In other words, the Plaintiff’s credit limit began loan transactions without obtaining the approval of the representative director, and the same credit limit was 350,000,000 won as the limit of the bill transaction, and the Plaintiff’s employees knew or could have known the fact that the instant payment guarantee was forged, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative’s employees were aware or could have known of the forgery of the bill transaction agreement.

However, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that Lee Jong-chul asked about the transaction relation with other financial institutions, and it cannot be said that there was any error because it did not specifically ask about the previous transaction with the plaintiff's credit cooperative branch (the customer information inquiry circuit may also be easily known). In addition to all evidence submitted by the defendant except the above-mentioned evidence, it is insufficient to find that the above-mentioned loan agreement on the discount of bill was inconsistent with or inappropriate for the internal regulations of the plaintiff credit cooperative, and there is no ground to deem that the plaintiff credit cooperative knew or could have known the fact that the payment guarantee letter of this case was forged.

(2) The instant payment guarantee was made in a hand-to-written form, which was not written as a hand-to-written form, and was written as a hand-to-written form, and there was no tape attachment to prevent any alteration to that part, and the head of the branch office could easily find out the forged fact even with the official seal of the head of the branch office themselves.

However, there is no ground to suspect that the payment guarantee certificate was prepared by a non-authorized person, including the amount column for the payment guarantee certificate, and there is no reason to suspect that the portion of the amount in the payment guarantee certificate of this case is appropriate by a tape attachment. According to the evidence No. 1-1, there is no ground to suspect that the document is not prepared properly, even if it is not prepared, it is not sufficient to doubt that the document was prepared by a non-authorized person. It is nothing more than all the official seal to the point of the payment guarantee certificate of this case.

(3) The author argues that, in light of the exceptional measures that decided to grant a loan only with the sphere of interest, which is not a debtor, by holding a large amount of loan consultation as above, it was more true in view of the fact that the instant payment guarantee was not duly prepared, and that, while lending a large amount of loan, this case’s payment guarantee was issued to the sphere of interest without regard to the payment method of the loan, it was issued to the Lee Jong-chul and that such fact was not notified to Lee Jong-chul even after the fact.

However, since the security to be offered by the debtor's side is the guarantee letter for payment by the bank, it is clear to secure the claims. If the handman's title in practice of the plaintiff's credit cooperative is the representative of the company responsible for the management of Lee Jong-chul, and the plaintiff's credit cooperative decided to grant a loan based on the consultation at the person responsible for the management of Lee Jong-chul, as seen above, and the debtor's transfer of loan and the documents on direct loan are prepared on the date of the actual execution of the loan, it is not a large amount of loan, even if it is a large amount of loan, it is not an exceptional measure. Furthermore, if the Lee Jong-chul prepared the documents related to the plaintiff's transfer of loan with the credit cooperative on the date of the loan, and then the loan is made to the representative secretary of Lee Jong-chul, it is not necessary not only to issue an issue on the methods of payment of Lee Jong-chul and the fact that it was delivered to the person responsible for the management of Lee Jong-chul.

(4) The payment guarantee of this case issued as of April 26, 1993 at around 10:00 on that date is expected in light of the process of approval following the issuance. The ordinary bank and other financial institutions issue the payment guarantee after the loan execution became final and conclusive. Thus, it is contrary to practice that the payment guarantee of this case was brought to the Plaintiff’s depository without confirmation as to the confirmation of the confirmation of the loan execution. Furthermore, it should have been doubtful that the payment guarantee of this case was not properly issued in light of the fact that the non-identical iron or tin loaned and requested that the Plaintiff’s depository issue the main debt certificate, such as the evidence No. 14, for the issuance of the payment guarantee certificate.

However, if the payment guarantee issued on the day is completed in advance, the possibility that the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative will be presented to the creditor at around 10:00, and there is no reason to view that the bank, other than the witness witness testimony who does not believe by the party member, issued a payment guarantee after asking the creditor about whether to determine the execution of the loan. Furthermore, the bank, which is a financial institution, has issued a payment guarantee for the confirmation of the execution of the loan, shall submit the payment guarantee to the bank that issued the above principal obligation certificate, and if requested to issue the above principal obligation certificate, it is reasonable to deem that the document will be issued after the loan. Thus, even if the principal obligation certificate containing the purpose of issuing the payment guarantee certificate is sufficient, it is possible to issue it after the loan. Thus, it is insufficient

(v)It is alleged that it is wrong to confirm whether the letter of payment is actually issued to the lending officer without going through the staff in charge of the Defendant Bank, but there is no ground to view that it should be the said employee in charge in its confirmation of its issuance;

(6) Ghana’s other reasons such as (i) the Nonparty’s financial misconduct report of the instant payment guarantee issued directly by the Plaintiff’s Treasury; (ii) the Plaintiff’s Treasury extended the instant loan without any particular review on the credit standing, etc. of the instant payment guarantee; (iii) the Plaintiff’s Treasury is not liable for civil and criminal liability for the instant scrap metal; and (iv) the Nonparty’s employees, immediately after the Non-Party’s financial misconduct report, find the instant scrap metal and copy of the wage ledger of the employees, including the Plaintiff’s title and title, do not appear to have known that the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee was not available solely on the financial misconduct of the Defendant Bank’s lending agent for the instant loan; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee certificate issued by a bank for a large amount of payment guarantee issued by the bank; and (iii) the fact that the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee certificate was not available to the Plaintiff’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s employees for the instant payment guarantee certificate can not be acknowledged as the instant payment guarantee certificate.

C. Furthermore, if the defendant bank is liable for the payment guarantee of this case to the plaintiff, the defendant would incur damage due to the negligence of the employees of the plaintiff's credit cooperative, as alleged above, and therefore the plaintiff's credit cooperative is liable for damages from the defendant bank as the employer. Thus, the defendant's credit cooperative claims for damages against the plaintiff's credit cooperative are offset against the amount equal to that of the defendant bank's payment guarantee obligation. However, as seen above, the above assertion cannot be accepted since it appears that the plaintiff'

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 298,956,575 won and damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from July 9, 1993 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking performance of this case is justified and accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party, and provisional execution is attached only to 2/3 of the cited amount.

Judges Pre-paid