Damages Attorney | Bank's 300 Million Won Damages Lawsuit, Claim Dismissed

The client had worked as an employee of the plaintiff for more than 5 years.

While handling loan work, the client had processed his duties in compliance with all procedures and regulations.

In this case, a problem arose because, even though some of the customer's documents were incomplete during the loan review process, this was overlooked and the loan was approved.

After the loan was approved, the customer did not make repayments for a certain period, and as a result the plaintiff suffered a financial loss.

The plaintiff, seeking to hold the client who had reviewed the loan responsible, filed a damages claim for the amount of the harm.

The attorney argued that, when the client reported to the senior approving officers at the loan intake stage while performing the loan work in this case, and at the approval stage after the loan signing as well, they granted approval without any problem.

The client held the rank of assistant manager, and in order to approve a loan, approval must be obtained from three senior approving officers.

The damages attorney emphasized that the senior approving officers had also granted approval without recognizing the problem, and argued that it was unfair for the client, who was not the final approving officer, to bear sole responsibility for the entire loss.

The client had worked as an employee of the plaintiff for more than 5 years and, during that period, had also improved the plaintiff's financial condition through active loan work.

The client was also usually kind and diligent and had a very good reputation among customers and colleagues.

The damages attorney argued that the plaintiff also bore responsibility for neglecting its duty of supervision, and argued that it was too harsh for the client, an ordinarily diligent and dedicated employee, to bear liability for a large amount of damages over a single momentary mistake.

The damages attorney reviewed and presented relevant legal principles to limit the client's damages liability.

In accordance with Supreme Court precedent, the attorney argued the scope of damages in a case where an officer or employee of a financial institution is liable to compensate the institution for loss by committing an act in violation of statutes or the articles of incorporation or by neglecting his or her duties.