2. The fact-finding and the record of the court below revealed that the defendant, after the occurrence of the insurance accident in this case to the non-party Chang-won National Credit Union, claimed the payment of insurance money on December 18, 199, and the defendant made payment period from December 17, 199 to January 10, 200 under the Depositor Protection Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the non-party union sent each deposit owner a written guidance for payment along with the payment statement individually in accordance with the above purport of the public notice, and the notice was deemed to pay the insurance money by group according to the number of union members on each of the above dates during the above period for the convenience of the payment affairs. The designated date for the plaintiffs was the date of December 18, 199, and the plaintiffs claimed the payment of each insurance money on that date, but the defendant refused the payment. In this fact-finding, the court below held that the defendant is liable for delay from the next day of the above payment notice after the plaintiffs' claim was made.

However, according to Article 31 (1) of the former Depositor Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6173 of Jan. 21, 200), the defendant Corporation shall pay insurance money upon the request of depositors, etc. of an insured financial institution. According to Article 31 (3) of the same Act, the defendant Corporation shall publicly announce the period and method of payment of insurance money and other necessary matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the depositors, etc. shall claim payment within the notified period. In light of the nature of the depositors protection system and the purport of setting the above payment period, the necessity of equal treatment for depositors, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the defendant Corporation's obligation to pay insurance money comes due on the date when the above payment period expires, and the unpaid amount is immediately omitted from the next day for the unpaid amount, and even if each of the depositors has separately set the payment period within the payment period and notified the insured financial institution to the depositors for the convenience of the payment affairs, it shall not be deemed that the following day is liable for delay. The allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing

3. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiffs the same damages for delay from January 11, 200 to January 10, 200, which is the day following the end of the period of payment publicly notified with respect to each of the money stated in the judgment below. Among the part against the defendant, the part against the defendant is reversed from December 19, 199 to January 10, 200, and this part is sufficient to be directly judged by a party member, and the plaintiffs' claim as to this part is dismissed. The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)