beta
(영문) 대법원 2004. 1. 15. 선고 2003다56625 판결

[채무부존재확인][공2004.2.15.(196),339]

Main Issues

[1] The purport that the former Credit Unions Act requires a resolution of the board of directors on the credit union's loans to union members

[2] Where a credit union becomes bankrupt after the chief director of the credit union entered into a loan contract for a union member without a resolution of the board of directors, the person entitled to exercise the right to ratification of such act (=trustee in bankruptcy)

Summary of Judgment

[1] In full view of the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 23(4), 27, 29 subparag. 5, and 31(1)2 of the former Credit Unions Act (amended by Act No. 5506 of Jan. 13, 198), the president of a credit union has the authority to exercise overall control over the affairs of the union and represent the union, and the above Act requires a resolution of the board of directors on the loans to union members, taking into account the special characteristics of a non-profit-profit credit union, the purport of restricting the representative’s power to promote the sound development of the union by ensuring the smooth management and maintenance of its property and the appropriateness of its finance, and to make the union comply with its original purpose of business.

[2] In a case where the representative's right to represent a credit union's lending is restricted to go through a resolution of the board of directors, even if the representative's right to represent a credit union's lending was made by an act of unauthorized representation without satisfying the requirements, and then the agreement is valid if the credit union ratified the loan contract later. If the credit union goes bankrupt, the right to manage and dispose of the credit union's lending right is exclusive to the bankruptcy trustee, while the agency of the bankrupt credit union loses the right to manage and dispose of the bankruptcy estate itself, the right to ratification of the act of unauthorized representation can only be exercised by the bankruptcy trustee, unless there are special circumstances.

[Reference Provisions]

[1] Articles 1, 2, 23(4), 27, 29 subparag. 5, and 31(1)2 of the former Credit Unions Act (amended by Act No. 5506 of Jan. 13, 198) / [2] Articles 59(2), 130, and 133 of the Civil Act; Article 7 of the Bankruptcy Act

Reference Cases

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da3029 delivered on December 20, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 350), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da26467 delivered on October 25, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da20503 Delivered on July 25, 2003

Plaintiff, Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant, Appellant

The Bankruptcy Trustee of the Bankrupt Credit Cooperatives (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 2003Na1527 delivered on October 10, 2003

Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Reasons

1. As to the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the loan contracts of this case concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendant Yusung Credit Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Hysung Credit Union") was null and void without a resolution of the board of directors under Article 29 subparagraph 5 of the former Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 5506 of Jan. 13, 1998), there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a resolution of the board of directors of the Credit Union regarding each of the loan contracts of this case, and in light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence employed, the court below determined that each of the loan contracts of this case was null and void unless there is any special circumstance.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the ground of appeal No. 3.

2. The court below rejected the above assertion on the defendant's assertion that each of the loan contracts of this case was made without the resolution of the board of directors of the United States Trade Union and thus null and void, even if it is later null and void, the defendant's ratification of the invalid contract requires mutual agreement between the parties. However, even if the defendant ratified each of the loan contracts of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs declared the intention of ratification.

However, in full view of the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 23(4), 27, subparagraph 5 of Article 29, and Article 31(1)2 of the former Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 5506 of Jan. 13, 1998), which was in force at the time of each of the instant lending contracts, the president of a credit union has the authority to take charge of the affairs of the union and represent the union, and the above Act requires a resolution of the board of directors regarding the loans to union members, taking into account the special circumstances of a non-profit credit union, to promote the smooth management and maintenance of its assets and the sound development of its finance, and to restrict the representative's right to represent in order to achieve its original purpose. Thus, even if the representative's right to represent is restricted by the act of representing the union's right to represent, the right to manage and dispose of its assets can be deemed as valid if the credit union's right to manage and dispose of its assets is terminated later by fulfilling the above requirements (see Article 130 of the Bankruptcy Act).

However, according to the records, the defendant, the trustee in bankruptcy, was made without the resolution of the board of directors, and thus, prior to the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the loan contracts of this case is invalid, it can be known that the plaintiffs urged the implementation of each of the loan contracts of this case under the premise that each of the loan contracts of this case is valid. Thus, each of the loan contracts of this case is valid due to the defendant's legitimate exercise

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion of ratification on the ground that ratification of each of the contracts of this case requires mutual agreement between the parties. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to ratification of act of non-exclusive representation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal No. 1 pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)