[손해배상][집22(2)민092,공1974.7.15.(492) 7910]
Where a land improvement cooperative has conducted a loan without obtaining authorization from the competent Do Governor under the former Land Improvement Project Act, whether a person who has lent money with belief that it is valid is not negligent in believing that it is valid.
Where a land improvement cooperative obtains a loan without authorization from the competent Do governor under the former Land Improvement Business Act and the borrowing act becomes null and void a year, the person who has lent the money with belief that the above borrowing act is valid and that it is valid shall not be negligent in believing that it is valid, and it shall be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages.
Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act, Article 46 of the Land Improvement Business Act (Abolition)
Plaintiff
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others
Gwangju High Court Decision 73Na212 delivered on November 22, 1973
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
(1) We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party (the plaintiff's original judgment is the non-party who was the director of the accounting division of the defendant union, although it appears that the non-party stated that the non-party performed a borrowed act on May 6, 1969) was liable for damages equivalent to five million won of the above loan since the plaintiff could not obtain a loan from the defendant union without the approval of the Do governor required under the provisions of the former Land Improvement Business Act, and caused damages to the plaintiff as a result of the non-party's negligence during the performance of his duties. Thus, the court below's decision that the non-party's above employee was liable for damages to the plaintiff as the non-party's employer's owner of the above non-party's liability for damages, and that the non-party's act as to the execution of the business of the defendant union's employer's liability for damages should not be viewed as an objective act of the non-party's employer or its employee's liability for damages. Thus, the court below's decision that the non-party's act was justified.
(2) We examine the third point of the same appeal.
The court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion (the above assertion by the defendant) as to the defense of offsetting the negligence that the plaintiff lent the money without confirming whether it should have been approved by the Do governor in advance in borrowing the money under the provisions of the former Land Improvement Business Act, which the plaintiff alleged by the defendant. However, in the case of the plaintiff's recommendation that the plaintiff's act of borrowing the money without the approval of the Do governor under the former Land Improvement Business Act, the plaintiff's act of borrowing the money, which is a telegraph, is deemed to be valid, even if the plaintiff believed that the act of borrowing the money is valid, it cannot be said that it is valid for the plaintiff to believe that the act of borrowing the money is valid, and therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense of offsetting the negligence as its reasoning does not constitute a violation of the legal principles on offsetting the negligence.
In this regard, there is a reason to see this point, and there is no need to judge the remaining points in the original judgment, and the original judgment is not exempt from reversal in this regard.
Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Seo-gu et al. (Presiding Justice)