[예탁금반환등][공2002.4.1.(151),639]
[1] Where a person received money in the name of a credit cooperative without a resolution of the board of directors of the community credit cooperative and consumed it at will, whether the community credit cooperative has made unjust enrichment (affirmative), and whether the community credit cooperative is a malicious beneficiary in the event of unjust enrichment (affirmative)
[2] The scope of return of unjust enrichment of community credit cooperatives where the director of community credit cooperatives received money in the name of the treasury without a resolution of the board of directors
[1] A community credit cooperative borrowed funds without a resolution of the board of directors is null and void in violation of the relevant provisions of the community credit cooperative Act. However, since the president and the regular director received money from a financial institution under the name of the funds needed by the community credit cooperative and kept it in custody, the president and the regular director voluntarily consumed the money, even if the president and the regular director voluntarily consumed the money, the community credit cooperative is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the loan to the financial institution as a result of obtaining profits without any legal cause and causing damage to the financial institution. In this case, the president and the regular director knew that the borrowing of the funds from the financial institution is null and void without a resolution of the board of directors, and thus, the community credit
[2] Where a person received money in the name of a credit cooperative without a resolution of the board of directors of the community credit cooperative and arbitrarily consumed it, the loan contract for the community credit cooperative is null and void. Thus, the community credit cooperative, a malicious beneficiary, is merely required to return to a financial institution the interest equivalent to the principal of the loan with statutory interest added thereto, and as long as it cannot be deemed that the community credit cooperative knew or could have known of the special circumstances, it is not obligated to compensate
[1] Articles 34, 35(1), 741, and 748(2) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 748(2) of the Civil Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da42956 delivered on December 23, 1996
National Federation of Korean Federation (Law Firm Pung-man et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Jeon Jeon-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 2000Na3775 delivered on September 14, 2001
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.
1. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.
A. On July 18, 1996, the non-party community credit cooperatives deposited KRW 250 million to the Defendant; the deposit period until January 18, 1998; the interest rate shall be 12.6% per annum; and the interest rate shall be 6% per annum.
B. Meanwhile, on July 19, 1996, Nonparty community credit cooperatives received loans from the Defendant, 2.5 million won per annum, 12.5% per annum, and the due date on July 19, 1997. At the time, Nonparty community credit cooperatives chief and the managing director of Nonparty community credit cooperatives forged the minutes of the board of directors without obtaining a resolution of the board of directors necessary for borrowing funds, and submitted them to the Defendant.
C. On August 9, 1998, the non-party community credit cooperatives transferred to the Plaintiff the right to return the instant deposit to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of February 7, 199.
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal
A. The court below held that the non-party community credit cooperatives borrowed funds without the resolution of the board of directors is invalid in violation of the relevant provisions of the community credit cooperatives. However, the chief and the regular director of the non-party community credit cooperatives received money from the defendant under the name of the funds needed by the non-party community credit cooperatives and kept it in custody. Thus, although the chief and the regular director voluntarily consumed the money, it is proper to determine that the non-party community credit cooperatives are liable to return unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to the loan to the defendant as a result of obtaining profits without any legal cause and causing damage to the defendant, and that the non-party community credit cooperatives are obligated to return the amount of the loan to the defendant, and there is no error in violation
B. In addition, the court below is justified in holding that the non-party community credit cooperatives, who received a benefit equivalent to the loan, is a malicious beneficiary, because the president of the non-party community credit cooperatives and the regular manager knew that the loan from the defendant is null and void without obtaining a resolution of the board of directors. In so doing, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as
3. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal
The court below held that, since the loan contract of this case against the defendant's non-party community credit cooperatives is null and void, it is proper that the non-party community credit cooperative, a malicious beneficiary, should return the interest equivalent to the principal of the loan to the defendant with statutory interest added, and that the non-party community credit cooperative is not obligated to compensate the defendant as long as it cannot be deemed that the non-party community credit cooperative knew or could have known the circumstances due to special circumstances, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence or in misapprehension of the legal principles or in lack of reasoning as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and it is so decided by the court below, which included the difference between the agreement of the amount equivalent to the loan to the non-party community credit cooperatives and the legal interest equivalent to the above loan amount against the defendant as of January 18, 198, which is the set-off date of the claim for refund of the deposit of this case against the non-party community credit cooperative.
4. Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne, and this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.
Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)