The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

However, under Article 111 (1) 4 (f) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, in the case of borrowing funds by the Defendant Union, the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation shall be required to borrow money from the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation and shall not be allowed to do so from any other person, and since this Promissory Notes are issued after borrowing money from the Plaintiff, not from the National Federation, and there is no error in its determination that this Promissory Notes were null and void in violation of the above provision, and since the nature and type of business of the Defendant Union are the same as the theory of lawsuit, it shall not be deemed that the Promissory Notes borrowed money from the Plaintiff, not from the National Federation and issued from the Plaintiff, are valid. Further, the lower court determined that the Promissory Notes were null and void since the nature of the Defendant Union and the type of business are the same as the theory of lawsuit, and that the Defendant Union does not have the ability to issue a Promissory Notes even to the extent that it is possible to do so.

In addition, the issuance of a promissory note cannot be said to be valid because the promissory note is a non-negotiable instrument, in violation of the above Article of the law, and the restriction on the capacity of the Defendant Union pursuant to the legal provision cannot be deemed to be an internal problem of the Defendant Union. Since the Plaintiff cannot be said to be valid due to its knowledge of the provision of the above law, the issue is both independent opinion or it is not appropriate for this case.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, upon examining the written response of December 15, 1966 submitted by the defendant's agent, it is written that the issuance of the Promissory Notes in question is done for the purpose of borrowing funds from persons other than the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation even if the issuance of the Promissory Notes in itself is interpreted in each subparagraph. It is not possible for the defendant to find out that it is stated "the issuance of the Promissory Notes with the borrowing of funds from the plaintiff other than the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation." The defendant cannot be viewed as an answer of the above defendant's agent, and it cannot be deemed that the issuance of the Promissory Notes in question and the confession of the use of the money from the plaintiff is made. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

The third ground of appeal is examined.

However, in light of the provisions of Article 111 (1) 4 (f) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the original judgment is justified to the effect that the original judgment borrowed money from the plaintiff, not the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, and the issuance of promissory notes is not an act within the business scope of the defendant cooperative, or an act related thereto. The Supreme Court's precedents are relevant to the case where there is no restriction on the capacity such as the above law, and it is not appropriate to this case, and even if the defendant cooperative has the ability to issue promissory notes within the business scope, and is carrying on credit business and receiving business, it is impossible to do the act of borrowing money from the person other than the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, such as this case, so it is impossible to issue promissory notes that result in borrowing the money, and therefore it is not appropriate to do so.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with the grounds above and the principle of sharing the costs of lawsuit against the losing party.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu