[2] The method of determining whether an auditor of a credit union was grossly negligent in neglecting his/her duties in relation to the settlement of accounts for division

[3] The case reversing that the court below's decision did not examine the substance of the window dressing accounting and, on the sole basis of the personal circumstances of the auditors of credit unions, did not commit gross negligence in the performance of duties for the window dressing settlement to them

[2] Whether an auditor of a credit union was grossly negligent in neglecting his/her duties in relation to the settlement of accounts for the division of accounts, etc. shall be determined based on the circumstances revealed by the auditor, not by personal circumstances, but by examining the contents of the division of accounts at issue, the degree and method of division, the degree and possibility of exposure and detection thereof, and whether the audit was actually performed.

[3] The case reversing that the above auditors did not commit gross negligence in the performance of their duties on the ground that the court below did not examine the substance of the window dressing accounting and did not easily understand that the actual audit was conducted by examining the accounting books and documents on the ground that it was not easy for them to easily understand that the window dressing accounting was conducted without examining the individual circumstances of auditors of credit unions

1. The measure of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff, a bankruptcy trustee of Daegu High Credit Union (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul High Credit Union"), sought compensation for damages caused by Gosung High Credit Union due to illegal acts or non-performance of obligation against the defendants who were an auditor of Gosung High Credit Union, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence alone is responsible for intentional or gross negligence. Rather, the auditor of the credit union, who was qualified as Grade II or higher or who was engaged in the accounting affairs for two or more years, could be appointed within three months from the completion of the audit and inspection conducted by the National Federation, but the defendants did not have expertise in the audit and inspection conducted by the National Federation, and was unable to seek an audit with qualifications for such audit and inspection, and thus, he could not easily request the Defendants to attend the audit and inspection conducted by his members near the Daegu High Credit Union or to whom the audit and inspection was conducted on the grounds that he was not aware of the facts that the audit and inspection was conducted on the grounds that he had no knowledge of the audit and inspection conducted by the National Federation, and thus, failed to take corrective measures until November 20, 20.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot agree with the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 30 of the former Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 5506 of Jan. 13, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 47 of the former Ordinance of the high sex mutual agreement shall audit the business, property status, books, documents, etc. of the union at least once a quarter. The quarterly audit report shall be submitted to the board of directors, and the quarterly audit report shall be submitted to the board of directors, and the annual report shall be prepared at the annual meeting, and the account books or records of the union shall be verified at least once a year. Article 55(2) of the former Ordinance of the high sex mutual agreement shall be solely or jointly liable for damages incurred by an executive to an association or any other person on purpose or by gross negligence in performing his/her duties. Thus, in accordance with the above statutes and the articles of association, if the auditor of the credit union becomes liable for damages to the association with respect to the settlement of accounts, etc., he/she shall be 208 or she shall be 200 years of gross negligence, 204.

However, as the grounds for discharge by the Defendants, the lower court held that the Defendants did not meet the qualifications required for the audit of a credit union and did not have expertise in auditing, and that the audit report was entrusted to the audit upon the request of the executives of a pro-friendly high-ranking relationship, and the Defendants prepared and sealed the audit report held by employees only in the form of a formal seal, and the directors accepted explanation from the board of directors before the board of directors, etc., while the Defendants, who were the auditors, did not attend the board of directors and did not receive any report as to it, may not be the grounds for restricting the Defendants’ liability, but such reasons may not be the grounds for exempting the Defendants from their duty of care under the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes and the articles of incorporation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da17606, Jan. 12, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2003Da17606, Jan. 12, 2006; and the Defendants did not attend the board of directors, etc.).

Whether there was gross negligence on the part of the defendants should be determined not by the personal circumstances of the defendants, but by examining the contents of the window dressing accounting in question, the degree and method of window dressing, the degree and possibility of exposure and detection thereof, and whether the audit was actually performed, based on the circumstances revealed by them.

Nevertheless, without examining the substance of the window dressing accounting, the court below held that the Defendants did not have gross negligence in the performance of duties with respect to window dressing settlement on the ground that even if they performed substantial audit by examining the accounting books and documents only based on the personal circumstances of the Defendants without examining the substance of the window dressing accounting, it was not easy to understand that the window dressing settlement was conducted. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the responsibility and gross negligence of the auditors of credit unions or by failing

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)