1. Acts of guaranteeing lending and borrowing relations between individuals in a bank, the vice head or branch, and negligence of an express commercial agent;

2. Acts of guaranteeing check-free payment without authority of the deputy head of a bank and branch offices, and employers' responsibility of banks;

1. The fact that the Deputy Director of a Bank, using the qualification of the Deputy Director, guarantees a large amount of lending and borrowing relationship among individuals belongs to this example. Thus, if the above Deputy Director of a Bank, the above bank branch and the Deputy Director of a Bank, are not authorized to guarantee a lending and borrowing relationship between individuals, they are negligent in believing that the above right of representation exists.

2. The Bank shall compensate the employer for damages caused by the illegal act of an employee deputy head, who is an employer, since the bank's vice head or branch office guarantees the payment of the personal check appears to be the bank's work and is closely related to its original work; and

Articles 126, 750, and 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da53 Decided May 13, 1975 (Article 756(96)562 of the Civil Act, Article 756(56), Article 106(3)2 of the Civil Act, Article 756(2)2 of the Civil Act, Article 756(2)2 of the Civil Act, Article 756(2)5 of the Civil Act (Article 756(97)562 of the Civil Act, Article 756(232 of the Civil Act, Article 756(2)78 of the Civil Act, Article 56(2)6 of the Civil Act, and Article 80Da901 Decided August 12, 1980 (Article 126(3)2 of the Civil Act, Article 756(2)57 of the Civil Act, Article 757(4)13084 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 16,00,000 won with an amount of 14,80,000 won with an annual rate of 5% from September 8, 1983 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, and four parts shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 20,00,000 and the above amount of KRW 18,50,000 with an annual rate of 25% from the following day of the delivery of the invoice of this case to the date of full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a provisional execution shall be sentenced.

According to the plaintiff's evidence Nos. 3 (Order of Apportionment), Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (the surface of the unit and back of the unit) recognized as genuine by the non-party 1's testimony, and each part of the testimony of the above witnesses and non-party 2, the plaintiff bears the responsibility for the above 0-party 1's testimony on December 28, 1982, 200,000 won for the issuance of non-party 4, and 1's statement of the above 0-party 1's own testimony on behalf of the non-party 3's witness, the above 0-party 1's testimony on behalf of the non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's above testimony on behalf of the above 1's bill.

Then, even if Nonparty 1 did not have the authority to act as a representative for the above lending obligations, the plaintiff was authorized to act as an agent for the head of the branch office above the usual branch office, and since the payment place of the above number of units is the above branch office, the plaintiff is justified in believing that Nonparty 1 had the authority to act as an agent for the head of the branch office in conducting the above guarantee acts, and therefore, the defendant bank is not exempted from the liability as a guarantor in accordance with the legal principles of expression agency. Thus, the fact that the non-party 1 was authorized to act as the vice head of the above branch office above as an agent for the head office of the above branch office, but it is equivalent to this case that the vice head of the bank used the qualification to guarantee a large amount of lending relations between individuals. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be found to have the authority to act as an agent for the head office of the above branch office, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff is not authorized to act as an agent for the head office above.

In addition, the plaintiff, who is an employee of the defendant bank, caused damage to the above loan amount by having the plaintiff lend money to the non-party 3 with respect to the performance of his business affairs. Thus, the defendant asserted that the defendant is liable for compensation for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as the non-party 1's employer. However, it cannot be deemed that the guarantee of the lending relationship between the individuals is closely related to the deposit business, which is the original business of the non-party 1, the vice head of the above branch, who assists the head of the branch within the scope of the defendant bank's business affairs, and it cannot be deemed as similar to the act of his duties externally. Thus, the guarantee of the above lending debt cannot be deemed as an act related to the performance of his business affairs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

However, the non-party 1's statement that he/she will guarantee the payment of the above amount on behalf of the above head of the above head of the above head of 000. The non-party 1's testimony x the non-party 1's act of payment guarantee x the non-party 1's act of payment guarantee 0. The non-party 1's above payment guarantee 0's 0's 0's 1's 0's 0's 0's 1's 0's 0's 0's 0'''''''''''''''''' 0'''''''' 0''' 0''' 0'''''''''''''' 0'''''' 0''''''' 0''''''' 0'''''''' 00'''''''' 1''''''6''''''''''''''''''''''''5''''''''''''''''''''''' 1''''''''''''''''' 0''''''''''''1'''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1'.

Judges J. Syun (Presiding Judge)