Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Yellow-Gyeongng et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Bank Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hwang-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

PakistanS Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongyang, Attorneys Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 11, 2003

Seoul District Court Decision 2001Gahap79551 Delivered on January 23, 2003

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 536,037,509 won and 25% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established pursuant to Article 3 of the Depositor Protection Act with the purpose of protecting depositors and maintaining the stability of the financial system by efficiently operating the deposit insurance system.

B. Nonparty Future Credit Depository Co., Ltd. (former company was a mutual savings and finance company, but its trading name was changed to the future Credit Depository of Korea on September 6, 199, and as of September 22, 200, respectively; hereinafter “IB”) to the trade name as of September 22, 200, according to the aggravation of the financial structure, upon receiving notification of an insolvent financial institution’s decision and management improvement order from the Financial Supervisory Commission on August 14, 2001, the performance of duties by business and executive officers was suspended and the administrator was appointed.

C. The business suspension of the above future safe constitutes Class 1 insurance accident stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 7(a) of the Depositor Protection Act, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 59,624,114,094 to the depositors, etc. of the future safe.

D. The Defendant, as an oligopolistic shareholder holding 74.1% of the shares of the future safe, transferred 19.1% of the above shares to the Defendant Intervenor, etc. on December 30, 1998, and the remaining 19.1% of the shares was transferred to the Defendant Intervenor, etc. on July 28, 1999.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is an oligopolistic stockholder who owned 74.1% of the shares of the future safe until December 29, 1998 and is jointly and severally liable with the mutual savings and finance company pursuant to Article 37-3 of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 4867 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the "Act"), and therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount of money from the substitute payment to the plaintiff who acquired the rights of the depositors, etc. by paying insurance money to the depositors, etc.

B. Determination

However, on August 29, 2002, Article 37-3 (1) of the Act provides that "any officer or oligopolistic stockholder of a mutual savings and finance company shall be jointly and severally liable with the mutual savings and finance company for the obligations related to the deposit, etc. of the mutual savings and finance company." However, on August 29, 2002, the Constitutional Court made a decision to the effect that the part concerning oligopolistic stockholders in Article 37-3 (1) of the Act concerning oligopolistic stockholders shall be jointly and severally liable to the " oligopolistic stockholder other than the person who has caused the insolvency by exercising influence over the management of the

Therefore, in order for the Defendant to be jointly and severally liable for the deposit obligation of the future treasury pursuant to Article 37-3 of the Act, the Defendant, an oligopolistic shareholder, should first be recognized as having caused fraudulent consequences by exercising influence over the management of the future treasury. However, it is not sufficient to recognize only the items of evidence No. 11-2, evidence No. 12-1 through 4, evidence No. 13-1, and evidence No. 13-2, and each item of evidence No. 13-2. (The Defendant, according to the subsidiary management regulations of the subsidiaries, has approved the annual compilation of budget for the future treasury in accordance with the annual planning of budget, received the personnel management, audit, quarterly report, etc. of the future treasury, was appointed respectively to the executive director and the auditor of the future treasury, and the Defendant has been appointed to conduct a prior audit of the credit extension amounting to more than 100 million won. The Defendant did not have any reason to acknowledge any causal relationship between the Defendant’s exercise of future management influence and its future management without any other reason.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)