Payment guarantee made by the Nonghyup agent on the back side of the per share table and the liability of the user of the Nonghyup;

If the executive agent of the Nonghyup branch has entered the purport of the payment guarantee on the back side of the current number of shares issued by the branch office, and has sealed his/her official seal, the above payment guarantee act is null and void as a matter of course, but the above payment guarantee act is closely related to the credit business, which is the original business of the cooperative, and the above executive agent commits an illegal act in relation to its duties, and therefore, the association is liable

Article 111 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da949 delivered on July 27, 1971, 74Da993 delivered on November 26, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10849 delivered on November 26, 1974, Supreme Court Decision 223No. 98 delivered on July 26, 197, and Article 756(93)562 of the Civil Act, Court Gazette 504No82 delivered on July 26,

Plaintiff

The Agricultural Cooperatives of Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap5108) in the first instance trial

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The appellate court's costs are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 3,500,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from July 2, 1971 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

The defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(1) At the time of May 1971, Nonparty 1 was in charge of the political party affairs as a regular agent of the branch of the Dongdaemun-gu branch of the Defendant Union, there is no dispute between the parties, and Nonparty 2’s statement of No. 1-2 (the number of shares per party and the number of shares) which can be recognized by the testimony of Nonparty 2 of the lower court witness to the effect that the testimony of the witness and the whole purport of the arguments between us are all made.

① Nonparty 3, who was the Defendant of the lower court, opened a party branch in the Dongdaemun-gu branch of the Defendant Union and traded it, and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4, who was the husband of Nonparty 3 from around April 1971, who was working for the said branch, asked Nonparty 1 to arrange funds.

② Nonparty 1 introduced Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff’s agent upon Nonparty 4’s request. Nonparty 2, on behalf of the Plaintiff, lent KRW 3,500,000 to Nonparty 3 through Nonparty 4 on May 1, 1971, on behalf of the Plaintiff, with the repayment date as of July 1, 1971. At the same time, Nonparty 4 issued one sheet of the number of shares per the first day of the Plaintiff’s first day, which was as of July 1, 1971, to Nonparty 3, at face value of KRW 3,50,000, at the same time, Nonparty 4 issued one sheet of the number of shares per the issuance date of Nonparty 1, which was as of July 1, 1971.

③ The Plaintiff and Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 3 lent the instant money to Nonparty 2, who was entirely unaware of the Plaintiff, that Nonparty 1’s lending of the said money, the transaction of Nonparty 3 was sincere and subscribed to installment savings, and if so, the Defendant’s East-gu Branch will guarantee the payment of the said money, as indicated in subparagraph 1-2, and as indicated in subparagraph 1-2 on the back of the said check, the Defendant’s East-gu Branch of the Seoul Agricultural Cooperatives guaranteed the payment of the amount indicated on May 3, 1971. The Plaintiff used the name of the said branch as “ Nonparty 1” and affixed Nonparty 1’s official seal to the name of the said branch and Nonparty 1. The Plaintiff believed that the said branch guaranteed the payment of the said money.

④ After that date, the Plaintiff sought payment to Nonparty 3 and sought payment again, but Nonparty 1 sought a grace period. Thus, Nonparty 2 demanded a grace period, which was presented to the same branch as of August 2, 1971, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the fact that the Plaintiff was not able to receive the money yet since it was returned to the non-party 5 and the non-party 6’s testimony as the witness of the lower court and the witness of the political party cannot reverse the fact of the above recognition and there is no evidence to reverse it.

According to the above facts, under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which is a mandatory provision, for the payment guarantee of the main check by Nonparty 1, the Agricultural Cooperatives Association is unable to borrow funds from others other than those of the National Federation of the Cooperatives, and the act of payment guarantee on the check issued by others shall be deemed to be equivalent to the act of lending funds. Therefore, the act of payment guarantee of the main check by Nonparty 1 shall be deemed to be null and void per annum.

However, this case's act of payment guarantee seems to be an act of payment guarantee of the defendant union in appearance, and this seems to be closely related to the credit business, which is the original business of the defendant union, and therefore, the act of payment guarantee of the non-party 1's principal act of this case is an illegal act related to its duties. Therefore, the defendant union should compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff because it believed that the act of payment guarantee

(2) Furthermore, according to the above facts, the plaintiff believed the payment guarantee act of the non-party 1 and failed to receive the payment. The plaintiff's amount of damages is KRW 3,500,000,000. However, in light of the fact that the non-party 1 did not know well whether the non-party 1 has the right to guarantee the payment of the check legally, it constitutes a case where the plaintiff is at fault and negligence. Therefore, when considering the degree of the negligence, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damages by reducing the plaintiff's amount of damages to KRW 2,50,000.

(3) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 2,500,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the date of the above repayment agreement to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in the principal lawsuit shall be justified within the above recognition scope and the remaining claims shall be dismissed. Since the original judgment is consistent with this conclusion, the defendant's appeal is just and dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne to the defendant who has lost the appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han Man-Shan (Presiding Judge) Lee Man-soon