The principal of the association and the principal of the association

Law Firm Samyang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Sung-hun, Justice Kim Sung-hoon and the largest difficulty

2. B2 (Resustion in 59, South Korea)

[Judgment of the court below]

With respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (Omission) among the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

The contract to establish a mortgage concluded on August 31, 2007 shall be revoked.

Defendant B2 performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed by the Busan District Court in September 3, 2007, No. 54432, Sept. 3, 2007 with respect to the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

A. Defendant B1, who entered the Plaintiff Association on January 23, 1982 and worked as a branch office from October 2006 to October 2007, and was subjected to disciplinary dismissal on March 7, 2008 on the grounds that he violated the duty of inspection procedure, inventory inspection, etc. in relation to the crime as seen in paragraph (c). Defendant B1 was subject to disciplinary dismissal on the grounds that he violated the duty of inspection procedure, inventory inspection, etc., and the Seoul Administrative Court filed a lawsuit for cancellation of the adjudication tribunal on relief from unfair dismissal by 2008Guhap44396.

B. Branch offices are integrated into a banking business (bank) business and a sales on commission of fishery products (joint market) business. Financial business is the site store (department leader) for the financial business, and joint market head for the sales on commission of fishery products (department leader) for each business. Defendant B1 is under the direction and management of the said two departments.

The plaintiff, after the resolution of the board of directors from August 1, 1984, does not conduct pure self-generating business, and all responsibility for purchasing and selling fishery products belongs to the contracting party, which is an intermediary wholesaler.

The ordinary management affairs of the joint market at the branch office shall be conducted by verifying documents submitted by the subordinate employee in order to properly manage the affairs of daily settlement, goods inspection, the management of goods stored in an external warehouse, the payment of accounts receivable for intermediary wholesalers, the management of accounts receivable for sales, the purchase registration affairs, and inventory management, etc.

C. Between the Plaintiff’s branch and the Plaintiff’s association, C1 entered into, as an intermediary wholesaler, a sales contract around September 12, 2005, and around October 10, 2005, a sales contract on fishery products goods storage contract around October 10, 2005, and C2, as a member of C1, was respectively entered into a sales contract on fishery products goods storage around September 21, 2005 and around June 2006, as an intermediary wholesaler, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s sales contract was acting as an intermediary.

C2, C1은 2005. 9. 20.경부터 2006. 12. 28.경까지 총 51회에 걸쳐 실제 구입하지 않은 수산물을 구입한 것처럼 허위로 수매요청하거나 실제 구입한 수산물보다 부풀려 허위로 수매요청을 하고, 다른 공범인 C3은 원고 조합에서 송금한 수산물대금 중 실제 수산물구입대금 및 소정의 수수료를 공제한 금액을 C2, C1에게 재송금하는 방법으로 원고로부터 합계 2,511,986,376원 상당을 교부받아 이를 편취하였다는 등의 범죄사실로, C2는 이에 더하여 원고와 매취판매를 통해 구입한 수산물에 대한 물품보관계약을 체결하여 원고 소유의 수산물을 보관하여 오던 중, 2007. 2. 하순경부터 2007. 8.경까지 사이에 ◆산업사 및 경산시 진량읍 다문리 ○에 있는 주식회사 □에서 업무상 보관 중인 원고 소유의 매취판매 수산물 6,904,877,872원 상당을 원고의 출고지시 없이 마음대로 무단반출하여 횡령하였다는 범죄사실로 각 기소되어(부산지방법원 2007고합616, 663호) 2008. 7. 16. 유죄확정판결(C2: 징역 6년, C1: 징역 3년)을 받았다. 라. 원고 조합의 '변상판정 및 절차규정에 의하면 “변상책임은 직원이 업무취급상고의 또는 중대한 과실로 원고에게 재산상 손해를 끼쳤을 때에 발생한다(제4조 제1항). 중대한 과실이라 함은 그 직무나 직급에 상응한 선량한 관리자의 주의의무를 현저하게,결하는 경우를 말한다(제2항). 과실 정도의 측정기준은 다음의 사항을 참작하여야 한다.

(5) Paragraph 5. (5) is deemed to have been grossly negligent as the recognition of accidents referred to in subparagraph 1 and the prediction of the results thereof and the prevention of accidents are easy. It is prescribed as follows: (a) the ability of care is greater in consideration of the number of working years, positions, and duties in charge; and (b) the act of care is deemed to be grossly negligent when the observance of other duty of care is easily expected.

E. Meanwhile, on August 31, 2007, Defendant B1 entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant B2 on a maximum debt amount of KRW 45 million with respect to the instant real property, which was owned by it, and the Busan District Court North Busan District Court issued the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on September 3, 2007 as the receipt of No. 5432, Sept. 3, 2007.

Defendant B transferred total of KRW 24 million to Defendant B1 from September 4, 2007 to July 29, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings] 2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant B1 is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for KRW 100,00,000 as to the instant real estate, which is one of the sole property of the Plaintiff, inasmuch as Defendant B1 entered into a mortgage contract on August 31, 2007 with Defendant B2, and subsequently completed a registration of the establishment of the right to collateral on September 32 of the same year, it would be prejudicial to the obligee, and thus, the said mortgage contract should be revoked, and the said mortgage contract should be revoked, and the registration of establishment of the right to collateral should be deleted.

B. Determination

(1) Where a fisheries cooperative by district provides for the liability for compensation of its employees, particularly for the liability for compensation, and the provision provides for the purport that an employee's liability for compensation may be incurred when he/she caused property damage to a cooperative by intentional or gross negligence in the course of performing its duties, and the scope of the liability for compensation and exemption or mitigation of the liability and other compensation procedures, etc., the above provision provides for the employee's liability for compensation only when he/she intentionally or by gross negligence in order to have the employee faithfully perform his/her duties beyond the burden of liability for damages, and the provision provides for the scope of the liability for compensation and exemption or mitigation of the liability, it shall be deemed that the association does not impose the liability for compensation on the employee only when he/she intentionally or by gross negligence in order to have the employee faithfully perform his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 198Da19898, supra).

(2) 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제3호증의 1, 2, 갑 제4호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 피고 B1이 ◇지점장으로 근무함에 있어 C2 부자의 횡령 등 범죄와 관련하여 신용조사와 수매품 보관 불철저, 수매 수산물 검·인수도 부적정, 재고조사의 미실시 등 주의의무를 위반한 사실은 인정되나, 당시 피고 B1에게 고의 또는 자신의 직무나 직급에 상응한 선량한 관리자의 주의의무를 현저하게 결여한 중대한 과실이 있었다고 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 이와 다른 전제에 선 원고의 피고 B1에 대한 손해배상청구는 손해배상의 범위에 나아가 판단할 것 없이 이유 없다.

As above, insofar as the Plaintiff’s damage claim against Defendant B1 is not acknowledged, there is no preserved claim, which is a premise for obligee’s right of revocation, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B2, such as revocation of fraudulent act, is without merit without further proceeding to determine the remainder.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.