Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant (bank customer, plaintiff): National of the Republic of Korea residing in [U.] .
  • Respondent (bank, defendant): Bank [B. AG] with its registered office in Zurich.

Facts:

  • The bank customer maintained several accounts with the bank and opened a business relationship under the pseudonym "[X.] ".
  • In 2008, the bank customer transferred several amounts to the account "[X.] " and the bank granted loans to [E.] Ltd. worth USD 20 million.
  • On December 19, 2008, a loan of JPY 3,091,220,814.-- was granted and transferred to [E.] Ltd.
  • The loan was converted into various other loans over the years and partially repaid.
  • The bank customer claimed to have never taken out a loan and demanded repayment of the loan amounts from the bank.

Lower Court:

  • The Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the bank customer's claim, considering the transactions to have been ordered CO approved by the plaintiff.
  • A claim for performance based on unauthorized loan granting and debiting was rejected as the claim was not made for the currency owed.
  • A claim for damages for negligent investment advice was rejected due to insufficient substantiation of damage.

Appeal:

  • The bank customer sought to have the judgment of the Commercial Court set aside and the bank ordered to pay the loan amounts.
  • The bank requested the dismissal of the appeal.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examines the admissibility of the appeal and finds that the judgment of the Commercial Court is a final decision and that the appeal in civil matters is generally admissible. The Federal Supreme Court is not bound by the arguments of the lower court and can uphold CO dismiss the appeal for other reasons.

The appellant alleges a violation of Art. 84 para. 1 CO, as the lower court failed to recognize that the appellant based his claim on both the unauthorized loan granting and debiting on December 19, 2008, and all other subsequent unauthorized transactions. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the lower court rightly considered the authenticity of the appellant's signature on the contract documents to be proven and that the appellant did not present sufficient grounds for forgery.

The Federal Supreme Court confirms the lower…