Where any executive of community credit cooperatives is liable for the operation and supervision of surplus funds intentionally or by gross negligence, and the criteria for determining whether such executive is intentional or by gross negligence.

Articles 23 (see current Article 25), and 26 (see current Article 28) of the former Community Credit Cooperatives Act (Amended by Act No. 6493, Jul. 24, 2001); Article 24 (see current Article 15) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16615, Dec. 15, 199);

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52418 Delivered on March 26, 2004

Plaintiff’s community credit cooperatives (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2006Na2757 decided Nov. 3, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 23(1) of the former Community Credit Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 6493, Jul. 24, 2001; hereinafter “Act”) that was in force at the time of the instant case provides that “An executive of a credit cooperative shall observe this Act, orders issued under this Act, the articles of incorporation, regulations, and the resolution of a general meeting and the board of directors, and shall faithfully perform his/her duties for the sake of a credit cooperative.” Meanwhile, Article 26 of the Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1615, Dec. 15, 199) provides that “An executive of a credit cooperative shall be jointly and severally liable for damages to a credit cooperative or any other person caused intentionally or by gross negligence in performing his/her duties to manage its surplus funds if he/she did not know of the fact that it had been incorporated into the board of directors or operated its surplus funds in violation of Article 24(1) of the Act, the guidelines for management of surplus funds at the time of the enactment or management of the articles of incorporation.”

2. 원심이 적법하게 인정한 사실관계와 원심이 채택한 증거들에 의하면, 피고는 1997.경부터 원고의 이사장으로서 업무를 총괄하는 지위에 있으면서 여유자금의 운용과 관련하여 실무 책임자로부터 보고를 받아온 사실, 원고는 1999. 7. 13. 기존 예탁금을 환매한 자금 98,891,355원으로 대한투자신탁의 수익증권인 ‘윈윈원더풀주식’(이하 ‘이 사건 제1 수익증권’이라 한다)을 매입하였고, 1999. 8. 25. 기존 공사채형 수익증권에서 환매가 제한된 대우채를 제외한 부분을 환매한 자금 405,047,650원 및 10,835,893원으로 동양오리온투자신탁의 전환형 수익증권인 ‘비너스자유로공사채 1호’를 각 매입하였다가 같은 달 27. ‘비너스자유로주식 2호’(이하 ‘이 사건 제2, 3 수익증권’이라 한다. 이하 이 사건 제1, 2, 3 수익증권을 통틀어 ‘이 사건 각 수익증권’이라 한다)로 각 전환한 사실, 원고가 매입하거나 전환한 이 사건 각 수익증권은 주식형으로 주식운용 편입비율이 20%~90%에 이르며, 이 사건 제1 수익증권에 대하여는 그 매입 후인 2000. 12. 29. 비로소 약관이 변경되어 주식운용 편입비율이 30% 이하로 조정된 사실, 원래 새마을금고는 여유자금으로 주식형 수익증권이나 주식을 매입하는 것이 금지되었다가, 원고가 이 사건 각 수익증권을 매입하기 직전인 1999. 6. 14. 운용지침이 개정되어 주식운용 편입비율이 30% 이하인 주식형 수익증권은 이사회의 결의를 거쳐 매입하는 것이 허용된 사실, 운용지침에 의하면 새마을금고가 여유자금으로 금융상품을 매입할 경우에는 해당 매입기관으로부터 상품별 약관을 반드시 받아 매입조건 등을 판단하도록 규정하고 있는 사실, 원고가 이 사건 제2, 3 수익증권을 매입하기 직전인 1999. 8.경에는 대우채로 인하여 채권형 수익증권의 원리금에도 손실이 발생하는 등 수익증권에 대한 투자 안전성을 보장하기 어려운 상황이었던 사실, 한편 2000. 10.경 내부감사를 통하여 원고가 운용지침을 위반하여 이 사건 각 수익증권에 투자한 사실이 드러나자 원고 이사들은 피고에게 이 사건 각 수익증권을 조속한 시일 내에 환매할 것을 요구하였으나, 피고는 이 사건 각 수익증권을 즉시 환매할 경우 상당한 원금 손실이 발생하기 때문에 환매를 계속하여 미루어오다가 2003. 12. 23.에 이르러 주식시장의 회복으로 원금 손실은 피할 수 있게 되어 이 사건 각 수익증권을 환매한 사실 등을 알 수 있다.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the management guidelines were amended to enable the Plaintiff to purchase shares of a type of beneficiary certificate that was prohibited from operating surplus funds during the purchase of each of the instant beneficiary certificates through a resolution of the board of directors in cases where the ratio of inclusion in stock management is less than 30%. In addition, each of the instant beneficiary certificates can be known as a type of shares under its name. In addition, since there was a concern over the safety of investment in beneficiary certificates, such as that treatment bonds incur loss in principal in the bonds-type beneficiary certificates at the time of purchase of the instant 2 and 3 beneficiary certificates, the Defendant, who received a report from the person in charge of the management of the Plaintiff’s surplus funds and received a report from the person in charge of the management of the Plaintiff’s surplus funds, is obligated to comply with the management guidelines or thoroughly supervise the safety of investment by confirming whether the Plaintiff’s share management ratio was within the scope of share management ratio under the revised management guidelines, and thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant could have been negligent in purchasing the Plaintiff’s surplus funds due to its negligence.

In contrast, the lower court found that the Defendant violated the operating guidelines in the course of purchasing each of the instant beneficiary certificates by operating the Plaintiff’s surplus funds, while it was difficult to view that the Defendant committed an unlawful act intentionally or by gross negligence in connection with the purchase and redemption of each of the instant beneficiary certificates. However, among the circumstances cited by the lower court, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s management funds are for re-managing the pre-existing deposit or beneficiary certificates or for re-managing the redemption price, or that the Defendant’s pre-determination of surplus funds is a matter of interest. Moreover, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the following circumstances: (a) even if the Plaintiff changed the terms and conditions after the purchase of the instant beneficiary certificates after the purchase of the instant 1, thereby satisfying the requirements for the share management ratio of the share-based beneficiary certificates that the Plaintiff permitted purchase in the operating guidelines as a result of the change in the terms and conditions of the share management ratio below 30% of the beneficiary certificates; and (b) contrary to the circumstances that temporarily exceed the management guidelines set forth in the National Federation of Korea, the Defendant’s gross negligence or gross negligence cannot be dismissed.

Therefore, the court below's determination that it is difficult to deem that there was an intentional or gross negligence to assume that the defendant was liable for damages caused by the plaintiff's operation of surplus funds on the grounds of the above circumstances, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the responsibility of officers of community credit cooperatives. The grounds for appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court 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 Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)