In 1997, Cheil Bank`s bad loan problems against the Hanbo Metal Corp.(hereinafter Hanbo) resulted in the joint failure of the Cheil Bank. Minority shareholders of the Cheil Bank filed a derivative lawsuit against one prior president of the Cheil Bank who ordered officials and employees involved to give more credit extensions to the Hanbo without considering its financial weaknesses. In March 15th of 2002, the Supreme Court of Korea held that banks`` directors should be more subject to the heightened duty of care than corporate directors in general. The case in this paper is the second one dealing with the heightened duty of care of directors in the financial world. This paper analyses in detail following issues, such as ① the necessity of making differences between the duty of care in general corporations and the duty of care in financial institutions, ② exceptional situations where banks`` directors may extend credits against bad clients despite the explicit prohibitions of such credit-extensions in relevant laws and articles of incorporations, ③ the establishment of much clearer standards with regard to the duty of care by bank directors. For the purpose of analyses, the author compares lots of foreign cases in either the U.S. or Japan and suggests some instructions for the Korean financial context. After going through these works, this paper cautiously considers the decision of the Appellate Court which was passive to the full adoption of the heightened duty of care against bank directors in normal situations. The author is a little bit anxious about a firm conclusion since this case is still pending at the Supreme Court right now. For that reason, readers may be dissatisfied with the conclusion of this paper. Another work should be done after getting a final decision at the Supreme Court.