eojeneun eunhaengeseo jikjeop chulgeumhaessdeoni susuryoga an deureosseo.

어제 already means yesterday, so the sentence would still make sense without 는.

Adding 는 makes 어제 the topic, often with a slight sense of as for yesterday or yesterday, at least. It helps set the scene and can also suggest contrast, even if the contrast is only implied.

So:

• 어제 은행에서 직접 출금했더니... = Yesterday I withdrew money directly at the bank, and...
• 어제는 은행에서 직접 출금했더니... = As for yesterday / yesterday, I withdrew money directly at the bank, and...

In natural speech, Korean often uses 는 like this to frame the sentence.

Because 에서 marks the place where an action happens.

Here, the action is 출금하다 (to withdraw money), and that action happened at the bank, so 은행에서 is correct.

• 은행에서 출금하다 = to withdraw money at the bank

By contrast, 에 is often used for:

• destination: 은행에 가다 = to go to the bank
• existence/location with 있다/없다
• time in some cases

So:

• 은행에 갔어 = I went to the bank
• 은행에서 출금했어 = I withdrew money at the bank

직접 means directly, in person, or personally, depending on context.

In this sentence, it means something like:

• directly at the bank
• in person at the bank
• by going to the bank yourself rather than using another method

It suggests a contrast with other ways of withdrawing money, such as:

• using an ATM
• using a convenience store ATM
• using some other indirect method

So 직접 출금했더니 gives the sense of because I withdrew it directly at the bank.

출금하다 is a more formal, banking-style word meaning to withdraw money.

• 출금 = withdrawal
• 출금하다 = to make a withdrawal / to withdraw money

A more everyday expression is often:

• 돈을 찾다 = to take out money / withdraw money

So both can be used in the right context, but they feel a little different:

• 출금하다 = more financial/banking vocabulary
• 돈을 찾다 = more conversational and common in daily speech

For example:

• 은행에서 출금했어. = a bit more formal or system/banking-oriented
• 은행에서 돈 찾았어. = more everyday speech

-더니 and -았/었더니 can be tricky, but here 출금했더니 means something like:

• when I withdrew money
• after I withdrew money
• because I withdrew money that way, it turned out that...

In this sentence, it connects the first action to the result:

• 은행에서 직접 출금했더니 수수료가 안 들었어
• I withdrew money directly at the bank, and as a result there was no fee

A natural English translation is often:

• Since I withdrew it directly at the bank, there was no fee
• When I withdrew it directly at the bank, it turned out there was no fee

So -었더니 often presents a result discovered after doing something.

They can all sometimes express cause/result, but the nuance is different.

-아서/어서

This is a general because/so connector.

• 은행에서 직접 출금해서 수수료가 안 들었어
• I withdrew directly at the bank, so there was no fee

This is straightforward and neutral.

-니까

This often gives a clearer reason or can sound more explanatory.

• 은행에서 직접 출금하니까 수수료가 안 들었어
• Because I withdrew directly at the bank, there was no fee

-었더니

This often emphasizes a result that was found or experienced after the first action.

• 은행에서 직접 출금했더니 수수료가 안 들었어
• I withdrew directly at the bank, and it turned out there was no fee

So in your sentence, -었더니 adds a slight I found out / that led to this result feeling.

Because 수수료 is the thing that does or does not occur / is or is not required, so it is treated as the subject here.

The key expression is:

• 수수료가 들다 = a fee is charged / a fee is required / it costs a fee

So:

• 수수료가 들었어 = there was a fee / a fee was charged
• 수수료가 안 들었어 = there was no fee / no fee was charged

This is why 가 is used rather than 를.

Great question. 들다 has several meanings in Korean, and one of them is:

• to cost
• to require
• to take (in terms of money, time, effort, etc.)

So in this sentence:

• 수수료가 들다 = for a fee to be charged / for a fee to be required
• 수수료가 안 들었어 = it didn’t cost a fee / there was no fee

You’ll see the same verb in other common expressions:

• 돈이 많이 들어. = It costs a lot of money.
• 시간이 꽤 들었어. = It took quite a bit of time.
• 노력이 많이 들어. = It takes a lot of effort.

So this is a very common meaning of 들다.

Both are possible, but 안 들었어 is more natural and conversational.

Short negation

• 안 들었어 = simple, common spoken Korean

Long negation

• 들지 않았어 = grammatically correct, but more formal or stiff in many everyday situations

In normal conversation, Korean often prefers 안 + verb when it sounds natural.

So:

• 수수료가 안 들었어 = very natural spoken Korean
• 수수료가 들지 않았어 = correct, but less casual in tone

들었어 is in the casual, non-polite speech style, often called 반말.

So the whole sentence sounds like something you would say to:

• a close friend
• someone younger
• someone you’re on casual terms with

The polite version would be:

• 어제는 은행에서 직접 출금했더니 수수료가 안 들었어요.

And a more formal written/spoken style could be:

• 어제는 은행에서 직접 출금했더니 수수료가 들지 않았습니다.

So the original sentence is casual everyday speech.

Yes. Korean very often omits subjects when they are understood from context.

In this sentence, the understood subject is most likely I:

• (내가) 어제는 은행에서 직접 출금했더니 수수료가 안 들었어.

Korean does this all the time. If the listener can easily tell who did the action, the subject is usually left out.

So even though I is not explicitly stated, it is naturally understood.

Yes, it sounds natural.

A few similar ways to say it would be:

• 어제는 은행에서 직접 돈을 찾았더니 수수료가 안 들었어.
• 어제는 은행에서 직접 인출했더니 수수료가 안 들었어.
• 어제는 은행 창구에서 출금했더니 수수료가 없었어.

Nuance differences:

• 돈을 찾다 = everyday, common speech
• 출금하다 / 인출하다 = more banking/formal vocabulary
• 창구에서 = at the counter/teller window, which is even more specific than just at the bank

So your original sentence is perfectly fine, especially if the speaker wants to sound a little precise about the banking action.