2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant shall pay 12,21,00,000 won to the plaintiff Il-il Mutual Savings Bank, and 7,000,000,000 won to the mutual savings bank from May 1, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked. The plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 1-2-1-5, Gap evidence 3-1 through 5, Gap evidence 4-7, Gap evidence 11 through Gap evidence 23, Gap evidence 25-1 through 3, Gap evidence 27, Gap evidence 33-3, Gap evidence 34-1, Eul evidence 7-1, and non-party 7 and non-party 3's testimony of the court of first instance.

A. Nonparty 1 Company borrowed 22 billion won in total in the name of Nonparty 1 Company, Nonparty 2 Company, Nonparty 8 (representative of Nonparty 9 Company), Nonparty 10 Company, Nonparty 11 Company, and Nonparty 19 (representative of ○○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent), and Nonparty 20 (representative of ○○○○ Real Estate Agent), etc. between May 14, 2004 and February 5, 2007, under the so-called “beverlon” in order to raise funds required for the remodeling project of stores located in Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-dong, which was in force at the time.

B. The Defendant is a mutual savings bank with a total of KRW 51,241,00,000 in its equity capital, and is not required to make a loan to the same person in excess of KRW 10,248,000 in its equity capital pursuant to Article 12 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act. However, upon the execution of the above loan to Nonparty 1, the Defendant was in excess of KRW 42,252,00 in the loans of the same person around February 2007.

C. When the prosecutor of the Financial Supervisory Service regarding the Defendant was anticipated by the representative director of the Defendant at the time, Nonparty 12 and the executives of Nonparty 12, who were the representative director of the Defendant, requested that the Plaintiffs loan 2.3 billion won to Nonparty 1 corporation as the debtor under the loan agreement in order to reduce the excess amount of the loan limit to Nonparty 1 corporation until the prosecutor of the Financial Supervisory Service completed the inspection of the Financial Supervisory Service to reduce the loan limit to Nonparty 1 corporation.

D. On December 2006, Plaintiff 1 requested joint loans from the Defendant with respect to the hub loan theory on the remodeling project in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter omitted), and refused to participate in the loan after examining feasibility. However, on September 5, 2006, Plaintiff 1 also loaned KRW 9,38,00,00 to the Defendant to avoid the inspection of the Financial Supervisory Service in the situation where Plaintiff 1 offered loans to Nonparty 14 in excess of the limit on loans to the same person, Plaintiff 1 promised to pay the above loans to Nonparty 14 and to pay the same person loans to Nonparty 14 as the Defendant’s above loans and to pay the loans to Nonparty 10,00,000 to Nonparty 10 and the Defendant 10,000 loans to Nonparty 15 in the name of the Defendant’s non-party 15,30,380,000,000 won to Nonparty 16, and the prosecutor again agreed to pay the loans to Nonparty 160,500,06.

E. Accordingly, without undergoing a separate credit examination with respect to the non-party 1 corporation, as of February 21, 2007, the plaintiff first prepared a credit transaction agreement with the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation as debtor, each of which is 8 billion won and 7.3 billion won, interest rate per annum, 12% per annum, and the expiration date of the credit as of February 21, 2008, respectively, and the mutual savings bank (hereinafter "the date") was also established on February 21, 2008 without undergoing a separate credit examination with respect to the non-party 1 corporation as the debtor on February 21, 2007 without undergoing a separate credit examination with respect to the non-party 1 corporation as of February 21, 2007 (hereinafter "the loans of each of the plaintiffs are referred to as "the above loans of this case").

F. The practical process of the loan of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendant was mainly conducted between the non-party 7 who was the regular manager of the plaintiff's day and the non-party 3 who was the defendant's business director treatment. The non-party 3 received the above money that the plaintiffs borrowed in the name of the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation, and appropriated it for the principal and interest of the loan of the non-party 11 corporation and the non-party 19 and the non-party 20 among the related loans to the non-party 1 corporation. Accordingly, the defendant's excess amount of the loan limit to the same person against the non-party 1 corporation

G. The plaintiffs urged the defendant to repay the above loans from the end of March 2007, and on April 30, 2007, the non-party 3 raised funds by the defendant causing a loan to the non-party 6, one of the parties related to the non-party 1 corporation on the same day, and paid 3,539,531,345 won to the plaintiffs as part of the above loans, and paid 3,539,531,345 won as part of the above loans, and paid 3,500 hours for the remaining loans. The plaintiffs paid 3,079,000 won as interest, arrears, and interest and late April 29, 2007 as to the non-party 1 corporation, respectively.

E. On June 29, 2007, the non-party 1 corporation paid 182,00,000 won as interest on the above loan to the plaintiff Jeju on June 29, 2007, and the plaintiffs appropriated the above amount to the interest and late payment charge against the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation until May 20, 207.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant bears the duty to repay each of the above loans, since the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 corporation are merely the formal debtor and actually debtor in the loan contract of this case. The defendant asserted that the non-party 12 who was the representative director of the defendant in the loan contract of this case requested the plaintiffs to provide loans to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 corporation, but the debtor of the loan of this case is limited to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 corporation, and even if the defendant's representative director promised to pay the loans on behalf of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 corporation in the course of requesting the plaintiff to do so, it is null and void as it is in violation of Article 18-2 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, and even if the above promise does not violate the Mutual Savings Banks Act, the above promise of the defendant representative director is not valid since it did not go through the

B. Determination

(1) Whether the Defendant is a substantial debtor for the instant loan

In light of the above circumstances and circumstances, the plaintiffs were merely aware that the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 did not have the right to request the repayment of the loan to the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation to repay the loan of this case on the condition that the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 did not have the right to request the repayment of the loan of this case on the ground that the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 did not have the right to request the repayment of the loan of this case on the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation's new loan of this case on the condition that the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 were not the party to whom the loan of this case would have been actually extinguished on the ground that the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation were not the party to whom the loan of this case would have been actually extinguished on the ground that the defendant 1 corporation and the non-party 1 corporation were not the party to this case's loan of this case.

(2) Whether the Defendant’s debt burden violates Article 18-2 subparag. 4 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

The purpose of Article 18-2 subparagraph 4 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act is to prevent the occurrence of a situation that infringes on the interests of ordinary people and small-scale business customers by causing a failure in performing their duties and disturbing credit order, and thus, it is not a simple regulation but an effective regulation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1601 delivered on June 11, 2004).

In this case, the defendant's obligation to repay the loan of this case is not a third party's guarantor or a security provider, but an actual debtor of the loan of this case. Thus, this cannot be viewed as an "guarantee of a debt or offer of a security" under Article 18-2 subparagraph 4 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act. Therefore, the defendant's argument disputing this issue is without merit.

(3) Whether the Defendant’s debt burden is null and void without a resolution by the board of directors

As alleged by the defendant, even though the defendant did not go through the resolution of the board of directors on the fact that the defendant bears the obligation against the plaintiffs in relation to the loan of this case, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs knew or could have known that he did not go through the resolution of the board of directors in receiving the loan of this case on the ground of the non-party 1 corporation and non-party 2 corporation in order to avoid the excessive amount of loan limit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff's first day the total amount of the loan amount of KRW 12,221,00,000 [=8,000,000 + (7,000,000-3,079,000)]; the loan amount of KRW 7,00,000 from May 21, 2007 to September 3, 2008, which is the date following the last day of the payment of interest; the defendant raised a dispute over the scope of the obligation; the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from the agreed interest rate of KRW 12% until September 3, 2008; and the damages for delay from the annual rate of KRW 200 per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; thus, the plaintiffs' claims for this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition; the plaintiff's remaining grounds for appeal shall be dismissed; therefore, the decision of the court of first instance shall be without merit.

Judges highest fever (Presiding Judge)