The lending from customers at the head of a bank and the liability of users of a bank;

If the head of the defendant bank borrowed money from the plaintiff for the urgent purpose of the defendant bank and consumed it voluntarily for the personal purpose on the grounds that the allocation of money at the head office is needed for the emergency purpose of the defendant bank, generally, it cannot be viewed that the bank borrowed money from an individual who is not a financial institution. Therefore, it cannot be generally recognized that such act is related to the affairs of the head office of the defendant bank, and therefore, it cannot be recognized

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da702 Decided July 22, 1969

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Jung Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na2771 delivered on May 7, 1975

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1169 Delivered on November 12, 1974

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below held that the above act of lending 10,00,000 won to the above non-party was just by issuing one sheet of face value per share of the plaintiff bank to the above non-party for a long time, and that the non-party continued to engage in the transactions as stated in its reasoning such as the overdraft agreement, etc., and that the allocation of funds from the non-party, who is the head office of the above branch office of Seodaemun at the time of September 1, 1971, is needed for the urgent purpose of the above defendant bank, and the above money should be lent to the defendant bank. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above act of lending 10,000,000 won from the above other branch office, since it was decided that the above act of lending 10,000,000 won to the above non-party bank was an act of lending 1 to the above non-party bank's own interest or embezzlement 1 to the above non-party bank's own interest, and it cannot be viewed that the above act of lending is an individual use of money.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)