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

Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 445,08,00, KRW 78,505,000 as well as KRW 78,505,00 as well as KRW 20% per annum from the day following the last delivery of the copy of the claim and the ground for correction as of March 19, 2004 to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff ordering payment is revoked. Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 210,442,00 won, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 jointly and severally, as well as 56,327,00 won, and each of them, 20% per annum from the day after the date of final delivery of the petition for correction of the purport of the claim and cause of the judgment of March 19, 2004 to the day of complete payment.

The judgment of the first instance court dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 seeking payment of KRW 445,08,00 in aggregate amount of damages incurred from excessive investment in real estate for business purposes, window dressing accounts, loans to those who do not belong to the common bond, and KRW 78,505,00 in total amount of damages incurred from window dressing accounts and loans to those who do not belong to the common bond. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 only on damages incurred from window dressing accounts ( KRW 210,42,00 in relation to Defendant 4, KRW 56,327,00 in relation to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2). The scope of the judgment of the party members is limited to the above part of the Plaintiff’s appeal.

2. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence Nos. 4 through 7; (c) evidence Nos. 22 through 37; and (d) evidence Nos. 1 through 3; (c) evidence Nos. 1, 5; and (d) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4; and (d) the testimony of Non-Party No. 1 and Non-Party No. 2 as well as the overall purport of the arguments as to the results

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Daegu High Credit Cooperative (hereinafter “Masung”) was a non-profit special corporation established on December 9, 1982, and was declared bankrupt by the Financial Supervisory Commission on May 6, 2002, and on September 5, 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee on the same day.

Shelled Defendant 3 was the auditor of sexual intercourse from February 18, 1989 to March 11, 1997; Defendant 4 from February 18, 1995 to March 11, 1997; Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 from March 11, 1997 to 2002, respectively.

(b) Circumstances leading to the settlement of accounts by division; and

(1) On October 11, 1995, Gosung-dong, 1991, purchased the land of 104-9 and 10 parcels of land, and newly built the partnership center on the said ground. Accordingly, it was ordered to rectify the excessive amount of real estate acquired for business purposes due to the increase in the investment amount, as it acquired real estate for business purposes in excess of its equity capital from the Daegu Metropolitan City Federation of Credit Cooperatives.

Shebly, in preparing accounting books from 1994 to 1997, the personnel in charge of the sexual counseling in charge of the settlement of accounts in fact, even though there was any loss, as if the net income was generated by making the settlement of accounts so as to make the unpaid interest on the deposit under supplement and correction, and distribute the profit to the union members and make the dividend to contribute to the union.

(c) the relevant regulations;

(1) The articles of association for personal consultation (However, this seems to exist after 1998) provides that auditors shall audit the status of operations, financial status, books, and documents of a union at least once a quarter, and the quarterly audit report shall be submitted to the board of directors, and the annual report which has comprehensive quarterly audit reports shall be submitted to the board of directors, respectively (Article 47(1)); the auditor shall compare and verify the deposits and deposits of the union members, other instruments, and the account books or records of the union (Article 47(3)); the officers of the union shall comply with orders under the Act, the articles of association, the rules, the regulations, and the general meeting and the resolution of the board of directors and shall perform their duties in good faith for the union (Article 5(1)); and the officers shall be solely or jointly liable for damages inflicted upon the union or any other person by intention or gross negligence in performing their duties (Article 55(2)).

According to Article 27, Article 70, and Chapter 2, subparagraph 6 of the Accounting Rules, the credit union may pay dividends when surplus accrues after accurately calculating its assets and liabilities at the time of the settlement of accounts for each business year. In particular, among the interest paid on deposits and installment savings, the amount not paid as of the last day of the year shall be treated as the cost of the settlement of accounts at the time of the settlement of accounts, and the unpaid interest shall be calculated in accordance with the prescribed calculation table and the total amount of the unpaid interest shall be corrected.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendants, who were auditors of high sex consultation, did not perform their duty of good faith and duty of care, and failed to perform their duties under the Credit Unions Act, the articles of association, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, the defendants neglected their duties and made it possible to settle the window dressing accounts by neglecting their duties. Accordingly, the high sex cooperation is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff due to the window dressing settlement in 1994, 68,810,000 won due to the window dressing settlement in 1994, 79,563,000 won due to the window dressing settlement in the year 195, and 62,069,000 won due to the window dressing settlement in the year 196, and 56,327,000 won due to the window dressing settlement in the year 196, and the defendants are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff due to the window dressing settlement in the period of their service.

B. Determination

(1) The former Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 506, Jan. 13, 1998; hereinafter “former Credit Union Act”) does not provide for the liability of executives of an association when it has faithfully performed its duties for the association under the provisions on delegation of the Civil Act, and caused damages to the association by neglecting such duties. However, in the case of the above amendment, the former Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 5506, Jan. 13, 1998; hereinafter “former Credit Union Act”) separately established the regulations on the liability of executives of an association (Article 33(2)) with the intention or gross negligence to compensate for damages inflicted upon the association when it performs its duties (Article 33(1)7). In the case of the above amendment, the former Act (amended by Act No. 6204, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter “former Credit Union Act”) provides that an auditor was liable for damages caused by an intentional or gross negligence before and after the amendment of the Act (Article 27(6). 3).

B. The Defendants did not appear to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendants in regard to the settlement of accounts by division shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-young (Presiding Judge)