금융기관 임직원의 부당대출로 인한 손해배상책임 성립과 책임제한 - 대법원 2010.11.25. 선고, 2007다10627 판례를 중심으로 -

The main issue of this subject matter case is how to evaluate the compensation liability causing wrongful loan by a financial institution's officer or an employee when the debt recovery or the assessment of secured debt is placed in a difficult situation. This article not only analyzed the duty of care of the wrongful loan by a financial institution's officer or an employee, but also organized the Supreme Court Decisions regarding at the time of judging damages. In this subject matter case, both the Seoul High Court and the Supreme Court approved defendant's violation of duty of care, but the Seoul High Court rejected the amount of damage claiming by plaintiff and dismissed this case. On the other hand, the Supreme Court admitted the defendant's compensation liability and ruled that a defendant could be limited his liability when the method of damage assessment is disappropriate. This kind of limitation of liability is different with comparative negligence or offset of profits and losses which have been recognized as theory or case law. Such a limitation of liability is similar to Daewoo electronic accounting fraud case which approved limitation of liability in case of very difficult to proof the amount of damage. Therefore, according to this subject matter case and Daewoo case, the limitation of liability could be applied when the method of damage assessment is disappropriate or the amount of damage proof is very difficult. But this kind of limitation of liability depends on the theory of fairness or equity as well as decided by judicature discretion, so it will be needed more discussion about it's conception and the bounds of discretion.