○○○○ Credit Cooperatives Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Attorney Kim-Hy, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Cha Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant

April 25, 2007

1. The application for intervention by the defendant succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed;

2. Defendant 1 and 3 shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 25,00,000 won with 12.5% per annum from November 7, 2002 to December 6, 2002, and 19% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part relating to the intervention by succession shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the defendant; the part arising between the plaintiff, defendant 1, and defendant 3 shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the part arising between the plaintiff and defendant 2 shall be borne by

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 25,00,000 won with 12.5% interest per annum from November 7, 2002 to December 6, 2002, and 19% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the application for intervention in succession

The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor asserted that on November 9, 2006, Defendant 1 and ○○ Credit Union (hereinafter “○○ Credit Union”) concluded between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 (hereinafter “○○ Credit Union”) on May 29, 2002, Defendant 1’s obligation pursuant to a loan transaction agreement, and succeeded to the status of the principal obligor, and thus, he filed an application for intervention in the instant case. As such, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor asserted that he applied for intervention in the instant case. As such, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor lawfully assumed the obligation with the consent of the Plaintiff, who is the trustee in bankruptcy for ○○ New Credit Union, the instant application for intervention

2. Determination on the claim against the defendant 1 and 3

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, and between the Plaintiff and Defendant 3 pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, the above Defendant is deemed to have led to confession.

(1) On May 29, 2002, the ○○ Credit Union concluded a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”) with Defendant 1 on May 29, 2002, setting the loan amounting to KRW 25,00,000, May 29, 2003 on the expiration date of the loan period as the rate of KRW 12.5% per annum, and damages for delay as the rate of KRW 19% per annum. Defendant 3 jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant 1’s obligation to the said loan transaction agreement.

Sheet Defendant 3 paid only interest until November 6, 2002, but did not pay the principal and interest thereafter, thereby losing the benefit of December 6, 2002.

On the other hand, ○○ Credit Union was declared bankrupt by the Ulsan District Court on March 26, 2004, and the plaintiff was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

B. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, Defendant 1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 12.5% per annum from November 7, 2002 to December 6, 2002, and 19% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

C. Determination on Defendant 1’s assertion

(1) As to Defendant 1’s claim, Defendant 1 asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case was unlawful since Defendant 1’s assertion was made on the following grounds: (a) Defendant 1, the representative of △△△△△, signed and sealed the loan transaction agreement (Evidence A 1) and the employee in charge of ○○ New Consultation, who was aware of the same fact; (b) Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1, his own employee, to lend his responsibility and pay the loan; and (c) Defendant 1 became the principal debtor of the loan transaction agreement in this case upon Defendant 1’s request to Defendant 1, who was the principal debtor; (d) it is deemed that Defendant 1 transferred the legal effect of the loan transaction agreement in this case at the time of the loan transaction agreement in this case to Defendant 1; and (e) Defendant 1 knew of the intention not to be liable to Defendant 1; or (e) Defendant 1 did not have any explicit or implied evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 was not liable to Defendant 1 as the principal debtor.

She also argued to the effect that Defendant 1 is not responsible for the repayment of a loan because the ○○ Credit Union made a loan to himself who is not a partner violates the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission. However, even if a loan to a non-member of a family union is illegal, it cannot be said that the legal effect of the loan is not denied. Thus, the above argument by Defendant 1

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 2

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable to pay the principal and interest of the claim to the Plaintiff, as Defendant 1’s debt to Defendant 1’s ○○ Credit Union under the instant loan transaction agreement.

B. Determination

Therefore, according to the statement in the health section, No. 1 (the same as No. 1) of the loan transaction agreement of this case, Defendant 2’s seal impression is affixed to the joint guarantor column of the loan transaction agreement of this case, and the fact that Defendant 2’s seal impression was submitted at the time of the loan agreement of this case is recognized.

However, considering that Eul’s evidence Nos. 5-3, 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 6, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 7-1 through 7, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 and the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, the defendant succeeding intervenor’s joint and several sureties of the loan transaction agreement in this case’s joint and several sureties with Defendant 2’s seal impression and seal impression, etc. without Defendant 2’s consent, it is recognized that the defendant succeeding intervenor attached the seal impression of Defendant 2 to the joint and several sureties of the loan transaction agreement in this case’s loan transaction agreement in this case’s agreement, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 2 guaranteed the loan transaction agreement in this case’s loan transaction agreement in this case’s agreement.

C. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of expression representation

The Plaintiff asserts that, even if the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor at the time of the instant loan transaction agreement, even if he did not receive the power of representation on the conclusion of joint and several sureties agreement from Defendant 2, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor was holding the Defendant’s seal impression, seal impression, and identification card, etc., in light of the fact that the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor had the right of representation on the conclusion of joint and several sureties agreement, Defendant 2 is liable as a principal obligor in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 2 had basic power to act on behalf of Defendant 2 at the time of the instant joint and several guarantee agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Meanwhile, Defendant 2’s successor living together with Defendant 2 and it appears that Defendant 2 could have easily put his seal impression design, etc., and there is no evidence to deem that ○○ Credit Union was making efforts to confirm whether Defendant 2 had the power to act on behalf of Defendant 2 at the time of the instant joint and several guarantee agreement. In light of the circumstances indicated in the argument of this case, the fact that Defendant 2’s successor had the seal impression design, etc. merely because ○○ Credit Union had the right to act on behalf of Defendant 2, it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable ground to believe that Defendant 2 had the right to act on behalf of Defendant 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 and 3 of this case is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Lee Dong-won