[2] In a case where a director acting for the chief executive officer of a credit union did not exclude the suspended executive officer from participating in the union's business so that the union damages were caused to the union, the case holding that the suspended executive officer is jointly and severally liable for damages, on the ground that the director neglected his/her duties

[2] In a case where a director acting for the chief executive officer of a credit union did not exclude the suspended executive officer from participating in the union's business, and eventually losses to the union, the case holding that a director acting for the chief executive officer shall be jointly and severally liable for damages, on the ground that he/she neglected the duties

1. Regarding the liability of auditors for damages caused by dividends, etc. following the settlement of accounts;

If an auditor of a credit union knew of the act of division of accounts, etc., or was aware of the fact that it was a union's account book or accounting-related document and paid attention, he could have been aware of such fact. However, if there was gross negligence in neglecting his duties as an auditor, it shall be determined on the basis of the circumstances revealed by the auditor by examining the contents of the division of accounts in question, the degree and method of division of accounts, the degree and possibility of exposure and detection thereof, and the actual performance of audit and inspection, not by the individual circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da8378, Mar. 25, 2004, etc.). The auditor's status cannot be exempted from the above duty of care merely because the auditor was not a non-standing and non-standing honorary position, but rather a mere fact that the auditor did not have expertise as an auditor, etc., can not be a ground for limiting the Defendants' liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da83784, Mar. 25, 2004, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence admitted by the court below, Defendant 1 provides that the unpaid interest rate as of February 14, 1991 to February 19, 200; Defendant 2 from November 12, 1994 to October 1, 2003; Defendant 3 served as the auditor of each non-party 1 credit union from August 10, 1997 to October 1, 2003; the accounting rules of the non-party 1 credit union stipulate that the allowances for bad debts shall be accumulated by compensating for bad debts of all kinds of claims; the bad debts shall be maintained at least 1% of the balance of loans as of the end of the fiscal year; the unpaid interest rate shall be revised by calculating the unpaid interest rate as of the closing date; and the settlement documents such as the settlement of accounts and the appropriation of surplus funds in each fiscal year shall not have been fully revised or the allowances for bad debts have not been accumulated in full; and the fact that each of the Defendants is clearly stated in the audit protocol.

In accordance with the above facts, the defendants knew that the non-party 1 credit union did not pay dividends in accordance with the illegal settlement of accounts in a manner that only some of the unpaid interest or that it did not set aside allowances for bad debts, but failed to perform their duties to prevent illegal dividends in accordance with the settlement of accounts by requiring correction and improvement in writing or reporting to the general meeting or the National Federation Chairperson after entering in the audit report to the general meeting or the National Federation Chairperson, thereby causing losses to the non-party 1 credit union. Even if it is not a domestic affairs, it shall be deemed that it could have been known if it is obvious that it is a window dressing settlement with the union's account books or accounting-related documents.

Therefore, in accordance with the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendants' liability is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability and gross negligence of the credit union auditor.

In addition, the summary of the defendants' remaining grounds of appeal on this part is that the court below erred in selecting evidence or finding facts which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, or erred in the judgment of the court below on the premise of facts different from the facts acknowledged by the court below, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal or cannot be accepted.

2. In relation to liability for damages of auditors due to unfair handling of credit; and

A. In order to hold an auditor of a credit union liable for damages against a union in connection with an illegal or unjust loan, if he knew that the loan in question was illegal or unjust, or he paid considerable attention to the union’s account books or documents related to the loan, that it could have been known if he knew that it was illegal or unjust, but he could have been negligent due to a significant negligence in neglecting his duties as an auditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da5252, Apr. 9, 2004; 2005Da23445, Jan. 12, 2006).

B. The portion of liability for loans to employees of entertainment establishments

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1's credit union is allowed to subscribe to the non-party 1's association members and handle only loans to the non-party 1's members (Article 8 of the articles of association of the non-party 1's credit union), credit regulations and credit operating manual, and loans for non-party 1's main business (excluding non-party 1's main business within a tourist destination, tourism complex, special tourist zone designated by the Tourism Promotion Act) and the members of the non-party 4's credit union are not prohibited from providing loans or being eligible as joint and several sureties's loans [the non-party 1's loan operation manual of the non-party 1's 1's 1's 0's 0's 6' 6' 1' 6' 6' 1' 6' 6' 6' 6' 1' 6' 6' 6' 6' 1' 6' 6' 1' 6' 7' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '6' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

In light of the overall circumstances acknowledged by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the above Defendants could have known that the above loans were illegal or unfair loans, and thus, they could not be seen as falling under the case where they could have known, if they were to know, or paid attention to, the possibility of causing serious damage to the union, as they were 2/4th quarter of August 2001, 201 (Evidence A No. 20) with the title "the right funeral service clause", and that there is a need to consider once all officers and employees so that they could facilitate the adjustment of documents and internal control in connection with the number of days loans, and the above loan-related documents were actually inspected. In light of the above, the above type of loan-related documents were collectively and repeatedly provided for more than one year, and the above type of loan-related documents were collectively and repeatedly provided for more than one year, and for the same period of time, the above Defendants could not be seen as being 600% of the causal relationship between the union or the National Credit Union Federation and the above type of loan-related financial institution.

The court below is just in finding the defendants' liability, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability and gross negligence of credit union auditors, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

(c) Loans extended by joint and several sureties for employees;

According to the court below's findings, the employees of the non-party 1 credit union handled the loans to the non-party 5 and the non-party 6, and took out the loans without taking measures to preserve claims, such as setting up other joint and several suretiess, and without taking measures to secure claims, the employees of the non-party 1 credit union who are not a joint and several sureties. Each of the above loans claims is non-party 1's total damages amounting to 50,465,00 won due to the long-term arrears

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the number of new loans and the number of employees of the non-party 1 credit union, and all the circumstances acknowledged by the records, such as the period during which the Defendants served as an auditor of the non-party 1 credit union, it shall be deemed that, if Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 had examined the loan documents, etc. as an auditor of the non-party 1 credit union, they would have inflicted damage on the non-party 1 credit union due to gross negligence on the part of the non-party 1 who did not discover the fact that the joint guarantor of each of the above loans was an employee who is not qualified as the guarantor in accordance with the articles of incorporation, etc. of the non-party 1 credit union, and take measures such as requesting correction and improvement in writing or reporting it to the president or to the National Federation.

The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability and gross negligence of the credit union auditor.

3. As to the defendant 5's liability for damages

A. From August 1, 2002 to October 30, 202, of the loans mentioned in Paragraph 2 (b) above, the court below decided that, after considering the evidence cited above, the non-party 1 credit union's regular meeting held on February 18, 200 shall order an extension of the director's order to vicariously give notice of the chief director and the vice chief director's duty, the non-party 5 decided that the non-party 1 credit union's representative director was the highest director's order; the non-party 1 credit union's regular meeting held on July 31, 200 as of July 31, 202, the court below's decision that the non-party 7 representative director and the non-party 4, who was the vice chief director at the time of the former chief director, were to be subject to disciplinary action equivalent to the suspension of duty for the non-party 5's representative director's remaining handling of duties for the above non-party 700 million won's representative's duty as joint defendant 7.

B. On the other hand, Articles 4(1) and 10 of the former Disciplinary Guidelines of the Credit Union (No. 18 No. e. 18) provide that a new consultation officer who was requested by the National Credit Union Federation of Korea to take a heavy disciplinary measure, such as suspension of duties, cannot perform his duties until the disciplinary measure is finalized. As properly pointed out by the court below, the above provision is designed to prevent the occurrence of damages to the new consultation, as it is likely that if an officer suspected of corruption continues to perform his duties from the time of receiving a request for disciplinary action until the disciplinary measure becomes final and conclusive. The "duty" in this context is not limited to the duties performed by an officer, who is the person subject to disciplinary action, at the time of receiving the request for disciplinary action, but it shall be deemed that the duties

Therefore, in this case, the above co-defendant 7 of the court below, who was the president from the date on which the request for disciplinary action by the National Credit Union Federation of Korea was received by the non-party 1 credit union, and the above defendant 4, who was the vice president at the time of receiving the request for disciplinary action as the former president, cannot perform his duties as the vice-chairperson. Such circumstance constitutes a ground prescribed by the resolution of the board of directors of the non-party 1 credit union of February 18, 200.

Thus, Defendant 5 was entitled to act on behalf of the president as a matter of course from the date of receipt of request for disciplinary action, and Defendant 5 was to exclude Defendant 7 and Defendant 4 from participating in the partnership's business until disciplinary action is taken place.

As above, Defendant 5, like the approval of the court below, left Defendant 7, a co-defendant 7 of the court below, who used the seal of Defendant 5, to continue to provide a loan to employees of entertainment establishments, and as a result, Nonparty 1's credit union suffered damages as seen earlier, it is not related to whether the regular board of directors of the non-party 1's credit union held on July 31, 2002 was held or whether the resolution of disciplinary action against the above co-defendant 7 of the court below and Defendant 4 was legally effective, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the court below to decide whether to hold a meeting of the board of directors on July 31, 2002, whether it is legitimate, and the effect of the disciplinary action taken by the court below. However, in accordance with the above, the court below's decision that recognized Defendant 5's liability is justifiable and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant 5 are purported that the court below erred in the selection of evidence belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below, or erred in the judgment of the court below on the premise of facts different from the facts acknowledged by the court below, and thus,

4. As to Defendant 4’s appeal

Defendant 4 did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and did not submit the appellate brief within the statutory period.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)