[1] The degree of duty of care required for a financial institution to open and give a deposit account to a person who is in his/her own or his/her agent

[2] The standard for determining whether there is a proximate causal relationship between the breach of the financial institution's duty of care in relation to the establishment of a master account and the loss of the employee or a third party

[3] In a case where it is merely used to deposit and keep the benefits, etc. obtained by infringing on the victim's property right in a fraudulent transaction, whether there is a proximate causal relation between the error in the financial institution that opened the maternity account and the occurrence of damages caused by the harmful act of the pattern as above (negative)

[4] The case holding that there is no proximate causal relationship between the error of banks that did not accurately verify the identity of the victim and the occurrence of losses where a person who secured all means to withdraw the money from the bank account under the victim's name transfers or withdraws the money to the bank account opened under the name of another person

[1] The deposit account opened in a financial institution is not simply used for the purpose of opening and withdrawing money. It is the actual financial situation of the current financial transaction. It is also actively used for the purpose of collecting or repaying bonds, debts, etc. to a third party in daily life or business activities due to the activation of credit transactions and the development of the online remittance and fund transfer system. If a financial institution does not have a minimum confirmation procedure such as confirmation of its identity cards or receipt of power of attorney and certificate of personal seal impression in the process of opening a deposit account, it can be easily predicted that the crime of receiving money can be easily conducted by means of arbitrarily remitting the money to a bank account opened in the name of the recipient. Even if a financial institution takes such minimum measures as above, if it does not take any of the above minimum measures, it is possible to eliminate the potential and unspecified risk factors, and even if a financial institution does not play the above role other than the financial institution opening a deposit account, it can be said that there is no possibility that it will assist a large number of victims of criminal acts including real name verification as well as the duty to use it.

[2] It cannot be deemed that a financial institution should always be liable for damages equivalent to the amount deposited and withdrawn through the original account solely on the ground that the bank did not properly undergo the procedure for identification. In order to recognize liability for damages, it shall be recognized that there is a proximate causal link between the violation of the financial institution's duty of care and the occurrence of the victim or a third party's damage. In determining the existence of proximate causal relationship, it shall comprehensively take into account not only the probability of the occurrence of a general result, but also the purpose and protection of the law and other behavior norms imposing the duty of care, the attitude of harmful act, the nature of the

[3] In a case where it is merely used to deposit funds in order to perform the obligation under the cause contract by the victim already accused in the course of a fraudulent transaction, or to deposit and keep benefits, etc. obtained by infringing the victim's property right by any other method or route, barring special circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the victim has entered into the cause contract by creating wrong trust due to the existence of the mother account, or the perpetrator has reached an access to the victim's property right and infringed upon the victim's property right due to the existence of the mother account. In addition, if a financial institution bears the liability for damages incurred from the above type of criminal act, it is difficult to deem that it is possible for an unspecified number of unspecified persons to take the responsibility for damages incurred by the infringement of property rights against many and unspecified persons, etc. caused by a non-discriminatory act, which is caused by the occurrence of the consequence of the financial institution's act, not only by predictability, but also by the purpose and scope of protection of legal interests and interests of the code of conduct that imposes the obligation to verify the victim's property right. Therefore, it should be justified between the mother account and the procedure.

[4] The case holding that there is no proximate causal relationship between the error of banks that did not accurately verify the identity of the victim and the occurrence of damages by the victim, where a person who secured all means to withdraw the money from the bank account under the victim's name transfers or withdraws the money to the bank account opened under the name of another person

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da54599 Decided January 13, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 226), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23599 Decided July 13, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1261) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da21320 Decided January 12, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 873), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da59842 Decided April 25, 2003 (Gong203Da41746 decided April 14, 206)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Multilater, Attorneys Ba-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Bank (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Shin Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Na9243 Decided March 31, 2005

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The deposit account opened in a financial institution is not simply used for the purpose of withdrawing money from the person who opened the account, but also actively used for the purpose of collecting or repaying bonds, debts, etc. that have been acquired or have been held by a third party in daily life or business activities due to the activation of credit transactions and the development of the online remittance and fund transfer system. If a financial institution opens a deposit account to its own or its own employees without a minimum confirmation procedure, such as confirmation of its identity cards or receipt of delegation certificates and personal seal impression, and verification of his/her agent identity cards, it can be easily predicted that a criminal act of receiving money can be easily conducted by means of arbitrarily transferring the money to a bank account opened in the name of the person who opened the account. Even if a financial institution takes such minimum measures, it can eliminate the above potential risks, and it can also be said that there is no possibility that a third party can perform the above role other than the financial institution to open the deposit account, regardless of the duty to use it as a potential victim and its potential to use it as a tort under Act 150%.

On the other hand, it cannot be deemed that a financial institution should always be liable for damages to the money deposited through its maternity account solely on the ground that the bank did not properly undergo the procedure for identification. In order to recognize liability for damages, proximate causal relation exists between the violation of the duty of care of the financial institution and the victim or a third party. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the purpose and legal interest of Acts and subordinate statutes and other behavioral norms imposing the duty of care as well as the form of harmful act and the nature of the victim's profit and the degree of damages should be comprehensively taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da21320, Jan. 12, 1995; 2003Da41746, Apr. 14, 2006). If a financial institution fails to properly undergo the procedure for identification of identity, etc., and thus it is difficult to deem that there was an infringement of the victim's property right by deceiving the victim's trust account or other forms of damages caused to the victim's trust account even if it had no capacity to deposit the victim's property right.

2. According to the facts established by the court below, on October 18, 2001, the non-party's mobile phone number was opened on October 18, 2001 with the non-party's resident registration certificate obtained, and on October 22, 201, the defendant bank visited the branch office of the non-party and asked the non-party to open a deposit account under the non-party's name when presenting the non-party's resident registration certificate pretending that the non-party was the non-party. The employee of the defendant bank opened a deposit account under the non-party's name despite the difference between the appearance of the non-party's name and the photograph face on the non-party's resident registration certificate, but the non-party's name was opened with the non-party's cell phone number on October 24, 200, and then the non-party's bank account was opened under the non-party's name or the non-party's personal account opened under the non-party's name and false statement method.

On the contrary, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to proximate causal relation in tort damages claims, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, in view of the error in failing to verify the identity at the time of opening the deposit account of Defendant Bank staff and the Plaintiff’s occurrence of losses. The ground of appeal assigning this error has merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)