2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,00,000 and the annual interest rate of KRW 5% from March 1, 1974 to the full payment system.

4. The plaintiff's remaining conjunctive claims are dismissed.

5. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

6. The costs of litigation between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be five equal parts, and one shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

7. Main paragraph 3 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

However, the defendant's attorney defense that the above Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2 were forged by the non-party 5, but it is insufficient to acknowledge it as the statement No. 1, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it in addition to the testimony of the non-party 3 and 4 already rejected.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

As to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is a joint and several surety for the above debt, the defendant sought the performance of the debt (as to the person who paid interest of KRW 9,00,000 and the interest of February 28, 1974 among the above debt, he sought the performance of the remaining part). The defendant's assertion that the defendant is a joint and several surety as above, and the above guarantee contract is null and void since the defendant's joint and several surety did not obtain permission from the supervisory authority under Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act.

As to this, the Plaintiff did not separately obtain permission from the supervisory authority regarding the above guarantee act itself.

(1) As in the case of this case, it is not necessary to obtain permission from the supervisory authority until the school juristic person guarantees it, when the principal of a school operated by the school juristic person temporarily collects funds for the purpose of appropriating the operating funds in executing the school budget.

(2) In addition, Article 10 of the articles of incorporation (No. 3) of the defendant corporation provides that the obligation, or waiver of rights, other than those determined by the balance budget, shall be permitted by the supervisory authority upon the resolution of the board of directors. However, for expenditures within the budget, loans which shall be repaid with revenues for the fiscal year shall not be permitted by the supervisory authority. Since this articles of incorporation obtains permission from the supervisory authority under Article 10(1) of the Private School Act, it shall be deemed that the comprehensive permission from the supervisory authority for loans which shall be repaid with revenues within the fiscal year, at least for expenditures within the budget, can be borrowed at the time as necessary. Thus, the above debt-sharing act for the purpose of expenditure within the school budget and can be repaid with revenues within the budget, so it shall be deemed that the above act is an act within the scope already comprehensively permitted.

(3) Under Article 31(1) of the Private School Act, the defendant corporation organized the school budget and submitted it to the supervisory authority prior to the commencement of the fiscal year 1972 fiscal year, and according to the budget bill (Evidence No. 5-1 and No. 5-2), Article 3 of the General General Provisions of Article 3 provides that "the limit of temporary loans during the fiscal year 1972 shall be KRW 50,000,000." Thus, the supervisory authority in receipt of the budget bill does not demand correction thereof under Article 31(2) of the above Act. Thus, in light of these facts, it should be viewed that there was a comprehensive permission by the supervisory authority for temporary loans within the limit of KRW 50,00,00.

(1) According to Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act, when a school juristic person bears obligations, it is required to obtain permission from a supervisory authority. This provision provides that the principal of a school operated by the school juristic person temporarily raises funds for the purpose of appropriating the operating funds in carrying out the school budget, and the application of the act guaranteed by the school juristic person is excluded, so there is no ground to regard that permission from the supervisory authority is not required.

(2) According to the contents of Gap evidence No. 3 (Articles of incorporation), where there is no dispute in its establishment, it is acknowledged that the proviso of Article 10 provides that loans which have been repaid with revenues in the fiscal year concerned for expenditures within the budget shall not be permitted by the supervisory authority. However, the mere fact that the above articles of incorporation including this provision obtained permission from the Minister for Delivery of Documents under Article 10 (1) of the Private School Act with regard to the above articles of incorporation, it cannot be readily concluded that the loans which have been repaid with revenues in the fiscal year concerned have already been subject to comprehensive permission from the supervisory authority for expenditures within

(3) According to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2 (name omitted), which does not dispute the establishment of Gap's evidence No. 5-1, 2 (Revenue and Expenditure Budget of Middle High Schools), the limit of temporary loan is 50,000,000 won in the general provisions of the wedding letter. However, although the items of the loan set the loans as 100 won in the special provisions of the wedding letter, it is clear that the specific amount of loan, time, method, etc. is not specified. Thus, even if the above budget was permitted by the supervisory authority, it cannot be deemed that there was a supervisory authority's permission on the loans of 50,000,000 won in its own statement.

Therefore, the defendant corporation's principal guarantee act should be null and void without the permission of the supervisory authority. Thus, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that it is valid is groundless.

3. The preliminary claim shall be sold; and

According to the above recognition, the director of the defendant corporation and the non-party 2, who is the principal of the defendant corporation's management (name omitted) middle school, borrowed 30,00,000 won from the plaintiff bank as an individual qualification, but the purpose of the loan was to use it for operating expenses of the above (name omitted) middle school, and the board of directors of the defendant corporation also became a joint guarantor with a resolution to approve the loan. Meanwhile, in full view of the whole purport of the argument in the above recognition, the plaintiff bank is also the defendant bank, although the non-party 2 was the principal debtor, the above loan was not the non-party 2's credit, but it was actually lent to the defendant corporation, and it is clear that the defendant corporation as a joint guarantor, believed that the defendant corporation is to pay its debt and lent it to the defendant corporation, and eventually, the non-party 2's so-called is an act concerning the execution of the business of the defendant corporation, and the defendant corporation is liable for damages to the plaintiff as the above defendant corporation or the non-party 2.

However, even with the Plaintiff bank, since the Defendant was negligent in not ascertaining whether the supervisory authority's permission was obtained due to the joint and several surety, it is reasonable to determine the amount to be compensated by the Defendant as KRW 24,00,000,000. Of them, KRW 9,000,000 was already paid to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,00,000 as well as damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum from March 1, 1974 to the full payment system, which is the result of the above illegal act. Thus, the plaintiff's preliminary claim is justified within the scope recognized above, and the remainder is dismissed.

4. If so, the original judgment is unfair on the ground that it is unfair with the party members and its conclusion, and thus, it is ordered to dismiss the plaintiff's main claim, and pay the remainder of the conjunctive claim as stated in the Disposition No. 3, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the provisional execution of Article 199 of the same Act.

Judges Park Woo-young (Presiding Judge)