[1] The scope and time of occurrence of damage claim arising from a loss of, damage to, or a tort that has reduced the value of security

[2] The meaning of "the date when the damage or the perpetrator becomes aware of" under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Code, which is the initial date of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort, and the relationship with

[3] Where a representative of a corporation commits a joint tort against a corporation by participating in the perpetrator, the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription period for the right to claim damages

[1] An act of destroying, damaging, or reducing the value of a security without the authority to do so constitutes a tort. In this case, damages suffered by a creditor is determined as the amount of secured debt within the scope of the value of the secured property, but does not arise only when the repayment period for the secured property arrives and the secured property is exercised.

[2] The short-term prescription of tort under Article 766(1) of the Civil Code is unique to the civil relationship established at all from a different point of view from the criminal prosecution, and such prescription period shall run from the "date on which the victim or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage or the perpetrator" without being affected by the prosecution of the relevant criminal case.

[3] In the case of a corporation, the "date when the representative becomes aware of the damage and the identity of the perpetrator", which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription for the claim for damages caused by a tort, means the date when the representative becomes aware of the fact, but in the case where the representative of a corporation becomes joint tort against the corporation as a result of the participation of the perpetrator, the corporation and the representative's profit conflict with each other, so it is difficult to expect to exercise the right to claim damages from the corporation, and the representative's right of representation is generally denied. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that the representative becomes aware of the damage and the identity of the tortfeasor, and it is reasonable to interpret that the short-term prescription should run only

[1] Articles 387(1), 393, and 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act / [3] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 78Da626 delivered on July 11, 1978 (Gong1978, 10976), Supreme Court Decision 78Da835 delivered on September 26, 1978 (Gong1978, 1118), Supreme Court Decision 97Da35771 delivered on November 25, 197 (Gong198Sang, 14)

Plaintiff Cooperatives (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1

Defendant 2 and two others (Attorney Jeon Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 5 et al., the taking-off of the deceased’s lawsuit

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Na6361 delivered on June 24, 1998

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff against the defendant 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court. Each appeal by the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed part of this appeal are assessed against the same defendants.

1. Defendant 1’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on the macro-economic evidence, that Defendant 1, as the president of the Plaintiff Union, was aware of the fact that Defendant 2, 6, and 7, who is an employee of the Plaintiff Union, was an employee of the Plaintiff Union, and did not take all measures to prevent the fraudulent release of the ginseng of this case, which is a collateral entrusted by the Plaintiff Union, without repaying the loan, and did not take all measures to prevent it, and held that the Plaintiff Union is liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiff Union as a party who committed a joint tort. In light of the records, comparison, and examination of the relevant evidence, the court below's fact-finding and decision are just, and there is no error of law of

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, gambling, and gambling.

A. As to the market price of the collateral

According to the records, we affirm and accept the measures that the court below recognized the market price of the ginseng of this case which was unfairly shipped out in accordance with the relevant criminal judgment, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as to the market price of ginseng such as theory of lawsuit.

B. As to the repayment of the joint tortfeasor

In theory, the plaintiff's claim amount should be deducted from the claim amount of this case by recognizing the validity of the extinguishment of the claim amount of the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 768,105,045, which the non-party who was the one of the joint tortfeasors unfairly released part of the ginseng of this case, and the total amount of KRW 61,227,419, which the plaintiff paid to the plaintiff during that period.

According to the records, the non-party has long been engaged in consignment sale transactions with the plaintiff union, and offered ginseng for consignment sale as security to secure its loan obligation. The damages incurred by the plaintiff union due to the non-party unfairly released ginseng from September 10, 1993 shall reach KRW 67,337,400 until September 10, 1993. The non-party, even though he paid part of his debts during the criminal trial, shall have more than KRW 400 million. The non-party, who was in the non-party's possession of the non-party, established a right to collateral security amount of KRW 1,484,00 won on November 18, 1995, but the appraisal price of the above real estate was merely KRW 112,784,000 on December 10, 1997, cannot be viewed as having been in violation of the legal principle as to the non-party's remaining damages liability due to the non-party's assertion and the non-party's non-party's remaining damages liability.

3. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

The act of destroying, damaging, or reducing the value of a security without the authority to do so constitutes an illegal act. In this case, damages suffered by a creditor are determined as the amount of secured debt within the scope of the value of the secured property within the scope of the value of the secured property, and it does not occur only when the security right is exercised upon the arrival of the due date for repayment of the secured property. In addition, since the short-term prescription period of a tort as stipulated in Article 766(1) of the Civil Act is unique to a civil relationship established entirely from the perspective of criminal prosecution, the prescription period is run from the "date when the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damages and the perpetrator" without any influence on the prosecution of the relevant criminal case, and the "date when the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damages and the perpetrator" in this case means that the representative becomes aware of the facts, but if the representative of the juristic person becomes a joint tort against the juristic person by participating in the perpetrator, it is difficult to expect that the juristic person and its representative exercise the right of compensation for damages, as well as it is denied.

In this case, according to the provisions of Articles 47, 48, 57, and 57-2 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, where the representative of a local agricultural cooperative (former unit agricultural cooperative) like the Plaintiff and the president of a cooperative (former unit agricultural cooperative) committed unlawful acts in the course of performing their duties, the auditor is an officer who has the authority to exercise the audit right or report such unlawful acts to the general meeting and to properly preserve the interests of the cooperative by filing a lawsuit against the president on behalf of the cooperative. In addition, an employee who does not participate in such illegal acts also has the authority and responsibility to compensate for the interests of the cooperative in the course of performing his duties. In addition, an employee who has obtained the consent of at least 1/10 of the union members in a representative lawsuit against the president, and thus, the auditors of the Plaintiff cooperative are in the position to compensate for such interests by filing a lawsuit against the president. Accordingly, the auditor of the Plaintiff cooperative has been aware of the defendants' corruption at the first time from 10th of November 1993 to 30th of the same month.

However, as long as Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that Defendant 6, 7, as the president of the Plaintiff’s association from May 20, 1990 to August 24, 1991 that the sum of the 14,424 market value of the ginseng totaling KRW 394,82,00 was unfairly released, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s association’s claim against Defendant 1, 6, and 7 and the deceased’s claim against Defendant 8 and the deceased on the ground that the claim for damages against Defendant 1, 6, and 7 had been extinguished due to the lapse of the three-year short-term statute of limitations. In so doing, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 6, and 7 knew of all of the above ginseng at the time of the unfair release of each of the above ginseng. Meanwhile, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1,6, the surety, and the starting point of the statute of limitations for damages claim against Defendant 8 and the deceased on the ground that this part had expired.

4. Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against the plaintiff as to the defendant 1, 6, 7, and 8 and the defendant 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12, who is the taking-over of the lawsuit of the deceased, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. Each appeal by the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)