[부당이득금][공1997.6.15.(36),1715]
Whether there exists a proximate causal relationship between the act of lending funds to the same person in violation of Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act and the damages suffered by a third party by trust thereof (negative)
The purpose of Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, which prohibits loans exceeding a certain amount to a same person, is to be in principle entrusted to the company's autonomy in the original profit-making business of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company which is originally a profit-making corporation, but it does not require a third party who gives more opportunities for credit by regulating excessive credit to a specific person due to its public nature according to its financial intermediary function, to estimate the scope of the claims to be borne by the Mutual Savings and Finance Company by the third party who intends to make a transaction with the person who received the payment, loan, or bill discount, or to protect the person who trusted in making a loan within the limit of the credit limit stipulated in the above Act and subordinate statutes, so even if the Mutual Savings and Finance Company has a third party who suffers damage by trust that the mutual Savings and Finance Company does not exceed the credit limit in violation of the above Act and subordinate statutes, it cannot be deemed that there is a proximate causal relation with the lending act and damage of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company.
Article 12 of the Mutual Saving and Financing Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 94Da21320 delivered on January 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 873) Supreme Court Decision 96Da18076 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2847) Supreme Court Decision 95Da43679 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3302)
Kim Jae-hoon (Attorney Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
Seoul High Court Decision 96Na695 delivered on December 13, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
On the first ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found facts as stated in the reasoning of the judgment below, and found as follows. The plaintiff acquired the non-party Park Jae-in Co., Ltd. from the original non-party Park Jae-in to obtain a loan of KRW 200 million as collateral, and registered a collateral creation on the real estate in this case to the defendant credit cooperative for the purpose of the loan to pay part of the purchase price. If the plaintiff obtained a loan with the real estate in this case as collateral, the plaintiff did not have any interest in whom the principal debtor and joint issuer jointly with the principal debtor for the loan, and if the plaintiff delivered the loan with the above loan certificate and promissorysory note in blank and the defendant credit cooperative for the loan, the court below held that the plaintiff and the non-party Park Jae-in granted a comprehensive authority as to whom the principal debtor should be in relation to the above loan, and since the loan was made only in the name of the debtor for the purpose of avoiding the restriction on the loan of the defendant credit cooperative, it cannot be deemed that the loan was an auction procedure related to the above plaintiff's loan without any substantial interest in this case.
In order to establish unjust enrichment, a person shall obtain a benefit from another person's property or labor without any legal ground, and thereby cause damage to another person. If the facts are recognized by the court below as lawful, it shall be deemed that there was an agreement among the plaintiff and the defendant on the fact that the obligation of the loan received under the above personal name was the actual obligation of the above company. Thus, the defendant's decision to this purport is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below. The precedent cited in the ground of appeal shall be different cases, and it shall not be a proper precedent in this case. The argument is without merit.
On the second ground for appeal
The purpose of Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, which prohibits loans exceeding a certain amount to a same person, is to be in principle entrusted to the company's autonomy in the original profit-making business of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company, but it does not require a third party who gives more opportunities for credit by regulating excessive loan to a specific person due to its public nature according to its financing brokerage function to make it possible for the Mutual Savings and Finance Company to estimate the scope of the claims to be borne by the Mutual Savings and Finance Company to a person who received the loan, etc. or to protect a person who trusted by the Mutual Savings and Finance Company to make the loan, etc. within the scope of the credit limit stipulated in the above Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, even if a third party suffers damage by trust that the Mutual Savings and Finance Company does not exceed the credit limit in violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be deemed that there is a proximate causal relation with the lending act and damage of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da23142, Dec. 23, 1995).
In accordance with this purport, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the lawsuit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)