1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

(1) After compiling the evidence adopted in its judgment, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its judgment. On the premise that the act of joint and several surety and collateral security against the Korea Comprehensive Finance Corporation (FSC) prior to the bankruptcy of the Korea Central Finance Corporation (FSC) (FSC) was changed to that of the Dongdong Securities Co., Ltd. on May 28, 1998, and was declared bankrupt on November 25, 1998, the Seoul District Court was declared bankrupt on May 11, 2001, on the premise that the act of providing surety and collateral security constitutes a gratuitous act under Article 64 subparag. 5 of the former Bankruptcy Act, and that the deposit claims of this case were retroactively recovered upon the plaintiff's lawful exercise of the plaintiff's right to set aside deposit claims against the Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd. on the ground of the judgment of the court below.

(2) However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below.

According to the former Depositor Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6274 of Oct. 23, 200; hereinafter “Act”), the defendant Corporation is a special corporation established to efficiently operate the deposit insurance system under the Act as its business of managing and operating the deposit insurance fund, and paying insurance money, etc. pursuant to the provisions of Articles 3 and 18 of the Act (Articles 3 and 18), the defendant Corporation and the insured financial institution [one of the financial institutions, subparagraph 1 (l) of Article 2] and depositors of the insolvent financial institution, etc. shall be established at the time the depositors, etc. have claims against the insolvent financial institution such as deposits, etc. (Article 29(1)); the defendant Corporation shall pay insurance money at the request of the depositors, etc. of the insured financial institution (the main sentence of Article 31(1)); in the case of the Class 1 insurance accident, the Corporation shall determine to maintain the stability of the contract or to request the Financial Supervisory Commission (the "Commission") to cancel the payment of insurance money, etc.; and the Corporation shall also request the Corporation to take measures of Article 314(2).

In full view of the above provisions of the Act, it is reasonable to view that the Committee’s decision to pay insurance money for the payment of insurance money in the case of Class 1 insurance accidents, unlike the case of Class 2 insurance accidents, is to maintain the stability of the financial system along with the protection of depositors, etc. by making the Defendant decide on whether to pay insurance money after taking into account the possibility of management normalization even after the suspension of payment of claims, etc., taking into account the possibility of management normalization, merger with other financial institutions, transfer of contracts to other financial institutions, etc.

Thus, in the case of Class 1 insurance accidents, the Committee may decide to pay the insurance money and may decide not to pay it, but only when the decision is made, depositors, etc. can claim the payment of the insurance money, and in the case of Class 2 insurance accidents, the Committee is not allowed to choose whether to pay the insurance money, and it is naturally liable to pay the insurance money upon the request of depositors, etc. in itself.

However, the court below recognized the defendant Corporation's duty to pay insurance proceeds solely on the ground that the business suspension disposition corresponding to the Class 1 insurance accident was taken with respect to the first and second deposits of this case for which the Commission did not decide to pay insurance proceeds. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of Article 31 (1) of the Act on the Payment of Insurance Proceeds, etc.,

B. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

Since the insurance relationship between the defendant corporation, insured financial institution, depositors, etc. is established when the depositors, etc. have claims against insured financial institutions, such as deposits, etc. (Article 29(1) of the Act). Thus, as long as the deposit claims of this case 1 and 2 are restored, the insurance relationship should be naturally restored.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of extinctive prescription and the right to set aside, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The plaintiff's ground of appeal of this case is premised on the defendant's obligation to pay the deposit insurance money to the plaintiff based on the Class 1 insurance accident, and as seen earlier, the defendant's obligation to pay the insurance money to the plaintiff is not acknowledged. Thus, the plaintiff's ground of appeal is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)