One of the Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seol, Attorneys Seo-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Attorney political management)

April 11, 2006

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2002Gahap4240, 2004Gahap8598 decided June 25, 2004

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 26,862,155,188 won and the amount of KRW 23,511,479,50 among them until the service date of the application for modification of the purport of the claim made from July 21, 2005 to October 10, 2005, the amount of KRW 6% per annum and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,175,573,975 won on October 20, 205, and shall pay 1,175,573,975 won every three months until July 20, 207 (the plaintiff changed the purport of the claim by changing the conciliation of part of the claim made in the trial).

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff (the plaintiff) is a financial institution that takes over a contract for a new North Korea mutual savings and finance company (hereinafter "new North Korea mutual savings and finance company") according to a decision to transfer contracts by the Financial Supervisory Commission as of February 22, 2002. The defendant is a public corporation established under the Depositor Protection Act of June 1, 1996 to protect depositors and maintain financial stability by efficiently operating deposit insurance systems in order to cope with situations in which financial institutions are unable to pay deposits due to bankruptcy, etc.

B. The Plaintiff’s process of acquiring a new North Korean treasury

(1) A mutual savings and finance company established on May 11, 1976 (hereinafter “mutual savings and finance company”) but around July 1995, the Minister of Finance and Economy issued a business management order to the Chungcheong North Korea treasury on July 7, 1995 and had the president of the Credit Management Fund perform the business management management. After that, although the Minister of Finance and Economy intended to take over the Chungcheong Korea treasury to another financial institution, he selected the Credit Management Fund as an institution to take charge of the Chungcheong Korea treasury on February 5, 1996, and the Credit Management Fund established by investing KRW 10 billion capital on March 20, 1996 to take over the Chungcheong Korea treasury.

(2) On April 9, 1996, the Minister of Finance and Economy made a decision for transfer of contracts pursuant to Article 23-8 of the former Mutual Saving and Finance Act (amended by Act No. 5050 of Dec. 29, 1995), and made it possible to transfer the assets and liabilities of the Chungcheong Savings and Finance as of April 10 as the date of the transfer of contracts, and recognized 41,508,219,985 won as the loss from the transfer of contracts due to the transfer of the Chungcheong Savings and Finance’s transfer of contracts, and recognized 41,508,219,985 won as the loss from the transfer of contracts, and added the loss from the transfer of contracts as business rights, so that it shall be disposed of over 25 years within the extent of net profit per fiscal year.

(3) According to the aforementioned decision on contract transfer, on April 15, 1996, the Credit Management Fund applied for a long-term loan of KRW 41.5 billion with the repayment period of KRW 41.5 billion with the maturity of KRW 41,508,219,985 as 15 years. On April 25, 1996, the Credit Management Fund borrowed the loan by setting the repayment period of KRW 41.5 billion with the Credit Management Fund’s repayment method of KRW 41.5 billion (hereinafter “the loan in this case”) in five years with the repayment period of KRW 10 years with the maturity of 10 years, the first repayment date of the loan principal, the first repayment date of April 25, 2007, and the interest and 3% per annum.

(4) Meanwhile, at the time of the decision on the transfer of contracts above, the lawsuit filed against the Central Lease Finance Corporation was in existence as Cheongju District Court 95 Gohap5063. On July 24, 1996, the above court accepted the claim of the Central Lease Finance Corporation and filed an appeal against it (Seoul High Court 96Na5597) and the appeal (Supreme Court 98Da11536) became final and conclusive. The Credit Management Fund decided to recognize the above obligation to return deposits as additional losses arising from the above decision on the transfer of contracts by the New Finance and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 5501 of Jan. 13, 1998). The credit management fund was abolished pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 5501 of Apr. 13, 1998), and the defendant's act of lending the deposit amount to the defendant 196 billion won by the president as an act of lending the deposit in accordance with the previous Credit Management Fund Act or the Mutual Saving Act.

(5) On March 31, 1999, the Defendant promoted the sale to a third party due to poor management conditions, such as assets to the credit cooperative of the North Korea and liabilities inspection, which amount in excess of liabilities reaches approximately KRW 67.3 billion, but promoted its own dissolution. However, as the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act was amended by Act No. 6429, Mar. 28, 2001 as the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act was amended into the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, the name of the mutual Savings and Finance Company was changed to the Korea Federation of Savings Banks; hereinafter the “Federation”) against dissolution on the grounds that a new credit cooperative of the North Korea is dissolved, a large amount of insolvency would occur if it is dissolved. Accordingly, the Defendant opposed to the transfer of contracts under the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry.

On the other hand, the Seoul Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Finance Company”), the Jincheon Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter “Jincheon Mutual Savings and Finance Company”), and the Cheongju Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter “Cheongju Mutual Savings and Finance Company”), located in the Chungcheongbuk-do, wishing to acquire the new Chungcheongbuk-do Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter “Cheongcheon-si Mutual Savings and Finance Company”) through the contract transfer method, and the transfer of the contract did not hold an open briefing session for the designation of the contractor.

(6) Accordingly, the Seoul Treasury merged the Cheongju and Jincheon Treasury, and changed its trade name into one of the credit treasury (the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement) as one of the stock companies. On June 29, 2000, the Financial Supervisory Commission decided on May 31, 200 that the Plaintiff, as of May 31, 200, shall take over the new North Korean treasury by means of a contract transfer.

The scope of the contract transfer was determined by the Plaintiff and the new North Korean Treasury through the appraisal and adjustment through their common properties, and then the Plaintiff took over the fixed assets of KRW 31,052,89,482, and KRW 109,370,509,866, and the transfer loss amount was determined as KRW 78,317,610,384, which is the difference between the above assets and liabilities (hereinafter “the transfer loss amount in this case”). The rights acquired by the new North Korean Treasury before the transfer date under its or a third party’s name are transferred to the Plaintiff, and all rights to the claim and lawsuit against the parties concerned such as executives and oligopolistic shareholders are transferred to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the new North Korean Treasury confirmed the scope of assets and liabilities subject to the transfer contract on June 30, 200 and prepared a written agreement on the transfer transfer.

C. The defendant's financing process

(1) According to the Depositor Protection Act, the defendant may request the Financial Supervisory Commission to order the transfer of contracts (Article 36-2 of the same Act), and the person who intends to take over contracts may apply to the defendant for the financial support (Article 37 of the same Act), and the defendant shall pay the insurance money under the Depositor Protection Act where it is necessary to ensure the smooth merger of insolvent financial institutions, etc. (Article 38 of the same Act).

(2) Around that time, in determining the method and scale of funding for savings banks that take over contracts of insolvent credit cooperatives including the Plaintiff, the Defendant applied for funding to the Defendant in accordance with Article 37 of the Depositor Protection Act for the purpose of compensating for approximately KRW 78.3 billion of the contract transfer loss amount of the instant case after the decision of the board of directors on June 30, 200.

(3) Accordingly, on July 20, 200, the Defendant decided to provide the Plaintiff with the funds for business normalization in accordance with the method of contribution, and prepared an agreement with the Plaintiff on July 20, 200 as follows.

(A) The amount of contributions every three months; and

1) The defendant shall contribute to the amount calculated by multiplying the supported principal by the base interest rate of KRW 83.1 billion (hereinafter referred to as the "support principal of this case") calculated in accordance with the formula stated in the attached Table for the normalization of management of the acquiring depository.

(ii)The base rate shall be the simple average distribution rate of Class I national housing bonds in the immediately preceding month of the operating profit calculation period (in the immediately preceding three months of the date of contribution) (hereinafter referred to as the “income rate of national housing bonds”).

(B) The time and period of contribution: The defendant shall contribute the amount of the contribution to the acquiring safe for a total of seven years every three months from the date of this agreement.

(c) Establishment of a management normalization plan: the acquiring safe shall establish a management normalization plan and submit it to the defendant within one month from the date of conclusion of the contribution agreement.

(d)Report and investigation;

1) The Receiving Treasury shall thoroughly maintain and manage the transfer loss amount until the expiration of the period of contribution, and shall report in writing to the Defendant the expenses not paid or recovered assets (special benefits) among the above specifications after the closing of each account.

2) Upon request of the Defendant, the Receiving Depository shall promptly report on its property, management, business status, etc., and shall provide books, workplaces, and other conveniences necessary for investigation.

3) The Fund shall not demand the increase, etc. of the amount of the contribution for the assets and liabilities, the acquisition of which has become final and conclusive, on the grounds of legal disputes, etc. based on the grounds that have occurred before or after the acquisition, and if there is or might be a significant change in the status of its assets, management and business, it

(e)Deduction Contribution

1) When an operating right for the transfer of a contract is completed even before the expiration of the period of funding, the amount calculated by subtracting the amount of unpaid earned surplus at the end of each fiscal year from the amount of contribution equivalent to the amount of accrued (excluding the amount of losses compensated) shall be contributed.

2) Where new acquisition of fixed assets is made in excess of the paid-in capital prior to the completion of the depreciation of goodwill after the conclusion of this Agreement, an amount calculated by subtracting the amount equivalent to the paid-in capital from

(f) Validity of an individual provision

The invalidity of some provisions of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of the other provisions.

(4) On October 20, 200, the Defendant paid KRW 1,718,092,50 to the Plaintiff on October 20, 200 according to the above-mentioned contribution agreement, and paid subsidies according to the changed rate of return on national housing bonds every quarter (after that, as follows, the amount of subsidies has been increased every quarter according to the adjustment decision by this court).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 8-1 to 38, Evidence No. 10-1 to 3, Evidence No. 22, 34, 35, 36, Evidence No. 43-1, 2, Evidence No. 44-2, Evidence No. 1, 2-2, Evidence No. 2-1, and 2-2, Evidence No. 2-1, and witness No. 2 of the first instance court, witness No. 5 of the first instance court, witness No. 5 of the first instance court, witness testimony of the first instance court, each fact-finding conducted by the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service,

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts as follows.

(1) The Defendant, at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition by the method of contract acquisition, intended to provide the Plaintiff with funds to cover the amount in excess of the liabilities of the new North Korean treasury, and subsequently, determined the subsidies to cover 80% of the transfer loss amount of the instant contract (around 62.6 billion won).

(2) However, in calculating the subsidy principal of this case against the plaintiff, the defendant is limited to the amount equivalent to the ratio of the "debt against the defendant among the total debts of the credit cooperative without the transfer of a contract" rather than the entire amount as shown in the attached list, as shown in the attached list, and excluded the loan debt of this case from the debt against the defendant, thereby omitting the debt of this case in the process of calculating the subsidy principal. In other words, the loan of this case 41.5 billion won which the credit management fund acquired by the federation of the credit management fund after the loan to the credit management fund was extended to the credit management fund, and the credit management fund transferred from the contribution accounting without any authority after the termination of the credit management fund to the original account of the credit management fund (hereinafter referred to as the "deposit accounting"). Since this decision becomes null and void a resolution, the loan of this case still belongs to the contribution accounting, and since the property belonging to the credit management fund under the Mutual Saving and Finance Act is the defendant's property belonging to the credit management fund under the Mutual Saving and Finance Act, the loan of this case shall be calculated as the comprehensive succession.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant omitted the amount equivalent to 80% of the subsidized principal including the loan 41.5 billion won, even though it is required to support the 41.5 billion won, and the Defendant is obligated to verify the amount of 52,480,981,066 won when calculating the subsidized principal according to the formula in the separate sheet. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of 23,51,479,500 won by adding the above quarterly subsidies to the above quarterly subsidies from July 20, 200 to July 20, 2005, with the annual interest rate of 3,50,675,785,785,7585,775,775,7585,775,775,785,775,75,775,785,75,75, etc. of the amount of subsidies under the separate sheet.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is not responsible for granting any further subsidies, since the Defendant established a policy to provide support within the limit of 80% based on the loss incurred by the Defendant when the acquired credit cooperative goes bankrupt or liquidates (referred to as “loss resulting from the payment of insurance proceeds” in the formula in the concept of the attached Table; hereinafter “Defendant’s loss”) and set the subsidy principal of this case into 83.1 billion, and specifically agreed to provide support as the agreement of contribution with the Plaintiff, and accordingly, paid the subsidy accordingly.

(c) Relationship to conciliation decisions;

8 savings banks such as Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, Co., Ltd. in the first instance trial including the Plaintiff who took over insolvent savings received subsidies from the Defendant on a quarterly basis pursuant to the agreement of contribution made with the Defendant. However, the savings banks, including the Plaintiff, etc., received much more than the subsidies originally anticipated due to the rapid decline in the return rate of national housing bonds, which is the standard rate, and accordingly, the above savings banks, including the Plaintiff, claimed that the instant lawsuit was erroneous to allow the Defendants to provide funds according to the return rate of national housing bonds, which is the change in the rate of contribution made between the Defendants, and argued that the total amount equivalent to 80% of the transfer loss amount (90% for partial savings banks) should be provided as management normalization funds according to the fixed rate of interest. Accordingly, the Defendant argued that the calculation according to the above return rate of national housing bonds as stated in the said agreement is the amount to be provided by the Defendant. Accordingly, this court did not determine the amount of funds to be provided by the Plaintiff on June 29, 2005 as the basis of the lower rate of the loan rate of 15.

3. The process of calculating the principal of the support in this case.

(a) Relevant provisions for the Credit Management Fund;

(1) According to Article 5 of the former Credit Management Fund Act (repealed as of April 1, 1998), the basic property of the Credit Management Fund is composed of government contributions, contributions from mutual savings and finance companies, etc., and Article 31(2) of the same Act provides that the Credit Management Fund shall establish and manage a special account separately from contributions and deposits. However, Article 15(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the accounts of contributions shall account matters concerning the receipt, management, compensation, and investment of contributions in the accounts of contributions, and the accounts of deposits shall account matters concerning the receipt and management of deposits and deposits from mutual savings and finance companies, etc.

(2) However, as the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 5501, Jan. 13, 1998) was amended, credit management fund was abolished pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda. As of April 1, 1998, the enforcement date of the amended Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act pursuant to Article 1 and Article 7 of the Addenda, which belongs to the accounts of contributions among all the property, rights, and obligations of the Credit Management Fund as of April 1, 1998, the Defendant is subject to comprehensive succession by the Federation of Credit Cooperatives, and that belongs to the fund management account of the Credit Management Fund was maintained until the establishment of the Financial Supervisory Service.

Article 6 of the Addenda to the above amended Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act provides that "The Credit Management Fund shall continue to exist until the date of establishment of the Financial Supervisory Service, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act." The Credit Management Fund shall be dissolved on the date of establishment of the Financial Supervisory Service without dissolution and liquidation procedures." The Financial Supervisory Service was established on January 2, 1999 by the Act on the Establishment, etc. of Financial Supervisory Organizations (Act No. 5490, Dec.

(3) Article 9 of the Credit Management Fund Act provides that the credit management fund management committee shall be established. However, the said committee is the highest decision-making institution that establishes a basic policy on the management of the credit management fund and resolves matters such as amendments to the articles of incorporation, decision on whether to pay compensation, budget and settlement of accounts, and business normalization of insolvent credit funds.

B. Accounting of the instant loans

(1) Long-term loans, such as the instant loan, have been disposed of in the accounts of the Credit Management Fund’s contributions in its nature, but at the time, financial resources were insufficient, the Credit Management Fund loaned the instant loan to the Credit Management Fund from the deposit accounts. Since the Credit Management Fund was repealed by the Credit Management Fund Act and transferred the instant loan to the Defendant and the Federation of Credit Cooperatives, which differs in the function of the assets of the Credit Management Fund, respectively, on March 14, 1998, the Credit Management Fund decided to transfer the long-term loan of KRW 361 billion and the fund of KRW 166.9 billion provided by means of short-term loans and purchase of bills, including the instant loan, from the deposit accounts to the contribution account.

However, on April 4, 1998, the Steering Committee of the Credit Management Fund decided to re-transfer the long-term loans of KRW 361 billion, which had been transferred to the account of contribution to the account of contribution, to the account of deposit. This was the result that the defendant raised an objection against the decision of March 14, 1998 and requested the Ministry of Finance and Economy to revise it. As a result, the long-term loans were treated from the account of deposit and the account of deposit was already managed separately under the provisions of Article 31 of the Credit Management Fund Act, so it is not necessary for the target institution to change the loan because the account of contribution and the account of deposit was already managed from the account of deposit, and the long-term loans were transferred to the account of contribution, and it is not necessary for the target institution to re-transfer the long-term loans to the account of deposit.

(2) On April 23, 1998, the defendant prepared and agreed on a letter of transfer to determine the details for comprehensive succession with the Credit Management Fund. The details thereof are the transfer for comprehensive succession of the contribution account, the date of acceptance on March 31, 1998, and the details of transfer and takeover are assets, liabilities, rights and obligations of the contribution account, registers related thereto, various certificates, and related evidentiary documents, etc.

(3) Meanwhile, with respect to the instant loan, the Federation of Credit Cooperatives, which comprehensively succeeded to the property belonging to the accounts of the Credit Management Fund, has opposed to dissolution on the ground of a large amount of insolvency due to the impossibility of collecting the instant loan claims acquired by the Federation of Credit Cooperatives when it is judged that the management status was poor based on the actual inspection of the assets and debts of the Defendant’s trust around March 31, 1999. On December 12, 1999, when the Financial Supervisory Service consults with the related agencies on the direction of the management of the Credit Management Fund, it has presented a proposal to change the interest of the loan terms of this case from 3% per annum to free interest, and on the basis of such proposal, discussions have been developed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

(c) Calculation of the supported principal;

The defendant, on July 20, 200, prepared a contribution agreement with the plaintiff, on the premise that the defendant did not take comprehensive succession of the loan of this case, did not include the loan of this case in the defendant's loss, and calculated the support principal for the plaintiff in the same manner as the attached list in the same manner as the defendant's loss was not included in the defendant's loss. Accordingly, the amount calculated by multiplying the above 83.1 billion won by the base interest rate was

[Ground for recognition] Evidence and evidence No. 34, 35, evidence No. 43-1, 2, and evidence No. 44, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the fact-finding results by the court of first instance

4. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. As seen earlier, with respect to the amount of KRW 83.1 billion of the subsidized principal of this case, the mediation is established that the Defendant additionally provides the Plaintiff with the amount of loss incurred by the decline in the return on national housing bonds, which is the standard rate after the agreement of this case. Thus, if the Defendant needs to provide additional support with respect to the portion corresponding to the obligation of the loan of this case, it is reasonable to provide the same rate as the above mediation is completed. Thus, the above standard portion is not premised on the premise that only the agreement of contribution is finalized and only the amount pursuant to the literal interpretation of the agreement is supported.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant would assist the plaintiff with 80% of the transfer loss amount of the contract of this case as a definite amount, notwithstanding the provisions of the above contribution agreement, on the following grounds.

① During the process of determining the subsidies for the management normalization funds following the Plaintiff’s acquisition of a contract with the North Korea Treasury, the Defendant agreed to provide the Plaintiff with a subsidy of 80% of the amount of the compensation for loss of the contract of this case. However, since the Defendant, while preparing and presenting the said agreement to the Plaintiff, failed to fully inform the Plaintiff of the details of calculation of the subsidies principal, etc. as stated in the said agreement, it was merely a signature and sealing on the said agreement without verifying them, the agreement is concluded to provide the Plaintiff with a subsidy of 80% of the amount of the compensation for loss of the contract of this case, notwithstanding the above agreement, and even if it is deemed that the Plaintiff consented to the contents of the said agreement contrary to the above agreement, it is deemed that the Plaintiff expressed an erroneous declaration of intention due to the Plaintiff’s belief, rashness, and experience, which is a public agency, and thus is obviously null and void as it is based on the Plaintiff’s mistake, the Defendant has to provide 80% of the compensation for loss of the contract of this case as at the time of contract transfer agreement.

② The Plaintiff’s loss of the contract transfer of the instant case’s KRW 79,909,624,485 as to the new North Korea Treasury was KRW 79,90,624,485 due to the deposit obligation of the new North Korea Treasury, the instant loan of KRW 41.5 billion borne by the new North Korea Treasury at the time of acquiring the North Korea Treasury, and the Defendant’s above obligation of KRW 16.1 billion against the Defendant. In addition, if the new North Korea Treasury goes bankrupt, the Defendant is not only under the Depositor Protection Act, but also under the Depositor Protection Act, and is a major shareholder holding 100% of the shares of the new North Korea Treasury. However, even if the Defendant fully bears the above obligation of the new North Korea Treasury’s deposit payment obligation to the depositors of the new North Korea Treasury through a decision on contract transfer, and is paid in full from the Plaintiff the instant loan by transferring KRW 79,909,624,485 to the Plaintiff with the normalization fund, and thus, the Defendant is merely 480% loss of the instant loan.

First of all, according to the plaintiff's assertion that the amount of 70 billion won for the above 80 billion won is calculated by multiplying the amount of 70 billion won for the financial institution by the profit rate of 16, Gap evidence 26-3, Gap evidence 40 and 41-2, witness of the first instance court, and testimony of 70 billion won for each of the above 70 billion won for the purpose of calculating the amount of 80 billion won for the financial institution to pay the amount of 70 billion won for the transfer of a new loan to the plaintiff based on the amount of 70 billion won for the previous agreement on the transfer of a contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the agreement that the defendant would provide 80% of the amount of 7 billion won for the financial institution to pay the amount of 7 billion won for the previous 70 billion won for the purpose of calculating the amount of 70 billion won for the financial institution to pay the amount of 9 billion won for the new financial institution.

Therefore, in light of the process of the above agreement on contribution, the above agreement on contribution shall state the contents of the agreement as it is by the defendant, and even if the plaintiff had been well aware of the process of calculating the subsidy principal of this case (it is doubtful whether the plaintiff demanded correction immediately in light of the process of the above agreement on contribution even if the plaintiff confirmed the process of calculating the subsidy principal of this case, in light of the process of the above agreement on contribution), it is due to a serious mistake that the plaintiff, who is a financial institution that is required to receive a loan of several hundred billion won, did not properly confirm it, and therefore, it is not attributable to the reason that the defendant did not properly notify the contents thereof, or that the plaintiff's gambling, rash, experience, or mistake is not attributable to the plaintiff's womb, ability, experience, or mistake

Then, the Plaintiff asserts that if the Plaintiff calculates the subsidy pursuant to the above agreement on the allegation (2) above, the Plaintiff would receive a subsidy not exceeding 80% but only 48% of the loss from the contract transfer of this case. However, from the perspective of the Defendant, 41.5 billion won of the instant loan out of the liability for the loss from the contract transfer of this case is adjusted into the Defendant’s loan obligations of the Federation of Credit Cooperatives, which is not the Defendant’s loan claims at the time, and thus deducted the subsidy from the calculation of the subsidy principal, the subsidy rate should be reduced naturally. In other words, the Plaintiff’s new bond acquisition without North Korea is designated as an insolvent financial institution, and was made according to the Plaintiff’s voluntary will that the Seoul Fund, Cheongcheon, and Jincheon National Treasury would be merged into an insolvent financial institution, and the scope of the transfer of contracts at the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer of contracts is determined every month as the debt determined by the Plaintiff’s joint asset transfer of the funds through the Defendant’s asset and the Defendant’s new bond acquisition agreement, which clearly violates the Plaintiff’s new bond acquisition rate of KRW 313.

C. Furthermore, even if the amount of the subsidy principal of this case is calculated based on the defendant's loss based on the defendant's calculation method, since the Credit Management Fund Steering Committee's resolution on April 4, 1998 from the contribution account to the deposit account is automatically null and void, it is judged that the loan of this case should be included in the defendant's loss (the defendant's claim against the new North Korea Treasury).

On the other hand, the loan of this case has the nature of compensation under Article 31 of the Credit Management Fund Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree thereof. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that it was necessary to make a loan from the credit management fund's contribution account. However, as seen earlier, the loan was made from the deposit account due to insufficient financial resources for the credit management fund's contribution account, and the credit management fund's operation committee decided to transfer the long-term loan including the loan of this case from the deposit account to the deposit account to the contribution account, but it again belongs to the deposit account as at the time of the loan again on April 4, 1998 by the revised mutual savings and finance company (amended by Act No. 5501 of Jan. 13, 1998) that prescribed the abolition of the credit management fund. However, the credit management fund's amendment was made after the amendment after the enforcement date (amended by Act No. 5501 of Apr. 1, 1998).

In addition, the provision that the defendant decided to comprehensively take over all the properties, rights and obligations of the abolished Credit Management Fund, which belong to the contribution accounts, shall be deemed to be a comprehensive succession of the credit claims of the loans belonging to the contribution accounts, rather than a defendant naturally succeeds to the existing loan claims, which are managed by the Credit Management Fund in the account of contributions. The management committee revised the loan claims as of April 4, 1998, which was originally decided on the transfer of long-term loans, including the loan, belonging to the original deposit account, to the original deposit account, after the management committee decided on March 14, 1998, to prevent the insolvency, etc. of the contribution accounts, it cannot be deemed to be in violation of the purport of the above provision. After that, under the premise that the National Federation of Credit Management Fund succeeds to the succession of the loan claims of this case, the credit claims of this case were presented from the related agencies for the transfer of contracts to the new deposit account to the original deposit account, and even if it appears to be invalid, it cannot be seen that the new loan management committee was changed to the creditor 1000.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the loan of this case should have been included in the defendant's loss in calculating the principal of the support of this case with the defendant's credit rather than the Federation of Cooperatives cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and reasonable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee In-bok (Presiding Judge)

1) The lending method and the financing method are the lending method and the financing method. The lending method refers to the method in which the defendant purchases deposit insurance fund bonds equivalent to the loans and provides them as security, and the defendant pays a certain amount of interest on the purchase bonds if the defendant lends the support principal calculated by the prescribed method to the acquiring safe. In the case of the contribution method, the defendant shall provide the acquiring safe with the amount calculated by multiplying the support principal by the base interest rate for a certain period.

Note 2) The application of the changed rate of return on national housing bonds, which is the changed rate, results in failure to obtain all of the above subsidized principal, so that the discount rate at the time of calculating the subsidized principal should be applied as a fixed rate.

3) On December 2005, the Federation of Cooperatives filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim for settlement, etc. as Seoul Central District Court 2005Kahap118515. The credit management fund's long-term loans such as the loans of this case, which were disposed of from the original deposit account, were transferred to the account of contribution on March 14, 1998, and again transferred to the account of deposit through the revision resolution on April 4, 1998, and had the Federation of Cooperatives succeed to the above long-term loans. However, among the long-term loans succeeded by the Federation of Cooperatives, the loans to 12 insolvent mutual savings banks were unable to be repaid due to the bankruptcy of the above savings banks. This is because it was erroneous that the credit management fund's loan was transferred to the account of deposit instead of the contribution account, and there is no reasonable ground for the transfer from the revised credit management fund's account to the account of deposit, and thus, the defendant's claim that the above loans should be transferred to the Plaintiff Federation and its poor loans should not be paid to the above account.

4) Exclusion from the part for which the conciliation decision became final and conclusive, the purport that the amount stated in the claim should be additionally supported based on the instant loan.

Note 5) The above amount is, as seen earlier, the amount calculated by the Defendant according to his accounting standards, unlike approximately KRW 78.3 billion, determined by the Plaintiff and the new North Korea Treasury through their joint property real history.

(6) On May 24, 200, the Defendant decided on May 24, 200 to change the limit of financial assistance from 80% to 90% in order to facilitate the transfer of contracts by an insolvent credit cooperative.