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

Defendant

Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant

June 19, 2008

Ulsan District Court Decision 2006Gadan5955 Decided June 13, 2007

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The defendant jointly and severally with the non-party 1 in the first instance trial shall pay to the plaintiff 25 million won and the interest rate of 19% per annum from September 11, 2003 to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The defendant succeeding intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of appeal, the part pertaining to the intervention by succession shall be borne by the Defendant’s Intervenor, the part pertaining to the principal lawsuit by the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 25 million won jointly and severally with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the first instance trial and to the plaintiff 12.5% per annum from November 7, 2002 to December 6, 2002, and 19% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Defendant: The part against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is dismissed.

The defendant succeeding intervenor: the court of first instance rendered a judgment to the effect that the part on the defendant succeeding intervenor should be revoked and that the defendant succeeding intervenor's participation should be permitted.

1. Determination on the motion for intervention by the defendant succeeding intervenor

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it cites it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (it is not reasonable to see otherwise even if the plaintiff consented to the repayment by subrogation of five million won by the defendant on behalf of the defendant).

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On May 29, 2002, ○ Newcom Co., Ltd. entered into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”) with the Defendant on May 29, 2002, setting the loan amounting to KRW 25 million, May 29, 2003, the expiration date of the loan period at the rate of 12.5% per annum, and damages for delay at the rate of 19% per annum. Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant’s ○○ Newcom.

(2) The Defendant only paid interest by November 6, 2002, and did not pay the principal and interest thereafter, thereby losing the benefit of time on December 6, 2002.

(3) Meanwhile, on March 26, 2004, the ○○ Credit Union was declared bankrupt by the Ulsan District Court, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

【Unsatisfy-satisfy-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat

(b) Markets:

(1) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the above loans of 25 million won to the plaintiff with the co-defendant 1 of the first instance trial and 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.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is unjustifiable since the Intervenor’s succeeding intervenor asked the Defendant, his employee, to whom he had been working, to lend the name of the obligor, signed and sealed the loan transaction agreement (Evidence A No. 1) and the employee in charge of ○○ Newcom was aware of the same fact. However, in light of the written evidence Nos. 2 and 5-1 through 6 of the evidence No. 5, it is reasonable for the Defendant to request the Defendant to lend the Defendant to whom he had been responsible and pay the loan, and thus, the Defendant became the obligor of the loan transaction agreement in this case, even though it is recognized that the Defendant became the obligor of the loan transaction agreement in this case. Furthermore, the Defendant did not have any impliedly or explicitly agreed on the legal effect of the loan transaction agreement in this case at the time of the loan transaction agreement in this case, and the Defendant had been aware of the intention not to assume liability to the Defendant, or the Defendant did not have any explicit or impliedly agreed on whether ○○ Credit was liable to the Defendant.

(3) In addition, the defendant asserts that ○○○ made a loan to himself/herself, who is a non-member, violates the relevant laws and regulations such as the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and thus, he/she is not responsible for repaying the loan. However, according to the evidence No. 4-2 of the evidence No. 4-2, it is recognized that the defendant is a member of ○○○, and even if ○○○'s loan to a non-member is illegal because the defendant is not a member, it cannot be viewed as denying the legal effect

(4) However, on January 17, 2007, the defendant asserted that the intervenor succeeding to the defendant paid 5 million won to the loan of this case on behalf of the defendant, and the plaintiff is also the person who is also the plaintiff. Accordingly, according to the health account and evidence No. 5-1 to No. 4, it is recognized that the plaintiff collected 5 million won from the intervenor succeeding to the defendant and appropriated 1,721,941 won as legal expenses. The remaining amount is 12.5% interest on the loan of this case from November 7, 2002 to December 6, 2002, and 12.5% interest rate of 10,000 won per annum from December 7, 2002 to 105, 2000 won per annum 16.5% per annum from September 10, 2003 to 205, the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay 19% per annum 30,5000 won per annum.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified within the above scope of recognition. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as it is ordered, and since the application for intervention by the defendant succeeding intervenor is unlawful, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed it is just and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Seobuk-doon (Presiding Judge)