The case holding that where an employee of community credit cooperatives issued cash cards at his/her genuine will even if he/she did not comply with the business regulations that require the member to prepare the "application for the issuance of cash cards" and the "cash card receipt" from the member himself/herself when issuing the cash card, the community credit cooperatives have no liability to compensate the member.

The case holding that where employees of community credit cooperatives issue cash cards on the basis of their genuine will even if they did not comply with the business regulations that require the members to prepare the "application for the issuance of cash cards" and the "cash card receipt" from the members when issuing cash cards, the community credit cooperatives do not have any obligation to compensate for damage to the members.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Asan Saemaul Bank (Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 14, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 27,804,60 won with 20% interest per annum from the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 30, 2004, the plaintiff's employee non-party 1 et al. issued a cash card under the name of the plaintiff to the non-party 2 without the plaintiff's permission and added a password to the non-party 2, thereby allowing the non-party 2 to withdraw the sum of KRW 27,804,600 on 49 occasions from the deposit account in the name of the plaintiff during the period from June 30, 2004 to August 8, 2004. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above withdrawn amount.

2. Determination:

According to the statements in Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 1-2, and non-party 1's testimony, the non-party 1, etc., who is an employee in charge of the counter of the defendant's credit cooperative, issued the plaintiff's cash card on June 30, 2004. According to the business regulations of the defendant credit cooperative at the time, when issuing cash card to the existing account holder, the non-party 1, etc. shall prepare the "application for cash card issuance" and issue the cash card after obtaining the name and seal of the member's personal seal (or signature) on the "cash card receipt" column, although the above non-party 1, etc. issued the above cash card without going through such procedures, and the non-party 2 (the non-party 4, Sep. 4, 2004)'s total account number was omitted from the plaintiff's bank account under the above non-party 4, and the plaintiff's bank account.

However, it is merely a procedure to ensure the issuance of a cash card based on the genuine will of the member himself/herself, who is the holder of the relevant deposit account, in the business regulations of the Defendant’s Treasury, that the Defendant’s employees who issued the cash card based on the genuine will of the member himself/herself, even if they did not follow the above procedure, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s safe bears any liability for damages even if they did not follow the above procedure.

However, when comprehensively considering the purport of the whole argument in the testimony of the witness non-party 1, the plaintiff visited the defendant's safe at around 14:00 on June 30, 2004 and applied for the issuance of a cash card to the above non-party 1, etc. At that time, it is recognized that the above non-party 1, etc. confirmed the plaintiff himself by resident registration certificate, etc. and issued the above cash card directly to the plaintiff himself. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the above non-party 1, etc. issued the cash card in the name of the plaintiff to the non-party 2 at his own discretion without the plaintiff's permission is without any reason without any further review (the statement in the evidence No. No. 3, the plaintiff borrowed money to the non-party 2, and received 16,272,000 won from the Kimjin-hee on June 30, 2004 to the above deposit account. In light of this, the plaintiff seems to permit the use of the above cash card after having been directly issued.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kang Jong-soo