Whether the payment limit of KRW 50 million per depositor is determined even when insurance money under Article 31(2) of the Depositor Protection Act and Article 18(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is paid (affirmative)

Article 31(1) of the Depositor Protection Act provides that insurance money shall be the amount obtained by deducting the total amount of debts from the amount of claims, such as the deposit of a depositor, and Article 31(2) provides that the limit of insurance money shall be determined by taking into account the total amount of domestic assets, etc. per person" and it cannot be deemed that the insurance money paid or its limit is clearly based on a depositor or a person, and it shall not be deemed that the payment limit of insurance money shall be determined by the limit of payment per depositor. It shall not be deemed that the payment limit of insurance money is set by the limit of payment per person of a depositor.

Article 31(1) and (2) of the Depositor Protection Act; Article 18(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Depositor Protection Act

Plaintiff

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation

Gwangju High Court Decision 2004Na6428 decided May 27, 2005

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. The judgment of the court below

The court below acknowledged on November 2, 200 that 200 million won was deposited in the account of the ○○○○ Credit Cooperatives established under the name of the plaintiff, 280 million won, 40 million won in the account of self-reliance, 320 million won in total, 30 million won in the account (hereinafter referred to as "the money of this case"). The plaintiff tried to withdraw the money of this case on November 4, 2002 on the ground that it was suspended from payment of deposits, etc. by the decision to commence the business management of the Financial Supervisory Commission, but the above association did not comply with the request of the plaintiff on December 26, 200, 50, 300 won in the above amount, 60,000 won in the above amount, 609 won in total, 609,900 won in the above amount, 609,900 won in total, 609,900 won in lieu of the plaintiff's insured financial institution.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, among the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the amount of insurance money to be paid by the defendant is not acceptable.

Article 32 (1) of the Depositor Protection Act provides that "insurance money paid by the Corporation to each depositor, etc. pursuant to Article 31 shall be the amount obtained by deducting the total amount of debts (excluding guaranteed debts) owed to each depositor, etc. to the insured financial institution from the total amount of claims, such as deposits of depositors, etc. as of the date of payment announcement of insurance money." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "insurance money under paragraph (1) shall be limited to the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the total amount of domestic production per capita, the amount of deposits protected, etc." Article 32 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Depositor Protection Act provides that "the payment limit of insurance money under Article 32 (2) of the same Act shall be 50,000 won." Article 31 (1) of the Depositor Protection Act provides that "the amount of insurance money shall be calculated after deducting the total amount of debts from the amount of claims, such as deposits of depositors, etc." Paragraph (2) provides for "one domestic total amount of insurance money per person."

However, the court below determined that among the instant money, the amount of KRW 50 million paid by the plaintiff, who is a depositor of KRW 60 million among the instant money, the amount of KRW 49,90,060 shall be limited to the amount equivalent to the percentage of the amount of the depositor. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the limit of the payment of the insurance money under the Depositor Protection Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)