Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Law Firm Grandmark, Attorney Yoon Gyeong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1-A and two others (Attorneys Kim Jae-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant) who are the litigation taking over the deceased Nonparty 1 and the deceased Nonparty 2

Defendant 3 (Law Firm Sol, Attorneys Oh Jeong-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 26, 2017

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Kahap53979 Decided February 16, 2016

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff, Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, and Defendant 1-C, among the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be modified as follows.

A. Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, and Defendant 1-B, and the Plaintiff, Defendant 1-C, shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 33,33,33, and each of them, to the extent of the property inherited from the deceased Nonparty 1, 5% per annum from February 4, 2014 to June 9, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, and Defendant 1-C are all dismissed.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant 2 is revoked and the plaintiff's claim on this part is dismissed.

3. A. The part against Defendant 4, which exceeds the part ordering payment under the judgment of the court of first instance, is revoked and this part of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Defendant 4 pays to the Plaintiff 20,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from August 22, 2013 to June 9, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The remaining appeal by Defendant 4 is dismissed.

4. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 2, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2), and Defendant 4 is dismissed in entirety.

5. The plaintiff shall bear all the costs of litigation incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 and the costs of appeal incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant 3. 85% of the total costs of litigation incurred between the plaintiff, defendant 1-A, defendant 1-B and defendant 1-C shall be borne by the plaintiff. The remainder shall be borne by the above defendants. 90% of the total costs of litigation incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant 4 shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant 4

6. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, and Defendant 1-B an amount equivalent to 2,366,666,666 won, Defendant 2 shall be KRW 900,000, Defendant 3 shall be KRW 500,000, KRW 300,000, KRW 300,000, and each of the above amounts shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff falling under the order of payment under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Plaintiff

1) Within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased non-party 1, Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, Defendant 1-B, respectively, KRW 1,208, 866,66, and any of them from February 4, 2014;

2) Defendant 2’s KRW 62,500,000 and its related thereto from August 23, 2013:

3) Defendant 3’s KRW 500,000,000 and its related thereto from August 21, 2013:

4) Defendant 4’s KRW 246,000,000 and its related thereto from August 22, 2013:

By February 16, 2016, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, Defendant 1-C, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4

The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked, and this part of the Plaintiff’s claim shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A) The bankrupt Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) was a juristic person established under the Mutual Savings Banks Act for the purpose of credit fraternity business, credit installment savings business, etc., and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee on September 26, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap139.

B) Defendants 2, 3, 4, and 1 as management officers of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, their status and tenure of office are as follows.

The name of Nonparty 1, the title of Nonparty 1, the representative director of April 6, 2007, to January 15, 201, to January 201, 201, to February 21, 2012, Defendant 3’s full-time auditor from March 29, 201 to February 3, 201, from November 26, 1999 to August 4, 2005, as the director of Defendant 4 (non-registration) from August 28, 2008 to September 3, 2010.

C) On February 25, 2016, when the instant lawsuit was pending, Nonparty 1 took over the lawsuit as Nonparty 2-A, Defendant 1-B, Defendant 1-C, and Defendant 1-C’s heir. Nonparty 2 died on September 6, 2016 and took over the lawsuit against Nonparty 2 again, Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, and Defendant 1-C. Meanwhile, Nonparty 1-B, Defendant 1-B, Defendant 1-C, and Nonparty 1-C, respectively. On May 23, 2016, Nonparty 2 filed a report on the re-approval with the Seoul Family Court Decision 2016Ra50894, May 23, 2016, and the said report was accepted on November 3, 2016.

D) Relevant provisions

(1) Loan-related provisions

Pursuant to Article 12 of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20653, Jul. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20653, Jul. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply), no mutual savings bank may extend credit to any individual borrower in excess of 20/100 of its equity capital, and if a mutual savings bank exceeds the said credit limit, it shall comply with the limits

In addition, in accordance with Article 2 of the Regulation on Supervision of Business of a mutual savings bank, Article 2 of the Standard Operating Manual of a mutual savings bank, and Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, and 27 of the Standard Loan Regulations, a mutual savings bank shall maintain the soundness and profitability of loans in handling loans, taking into account the credit standing and repayment ability of a borrower, the use of funds, etc., and may treat collateral as credit for a person deemed not to impede recovery of claims by comprehensively examining the feasibility, profitability, assets, credit standing, etc. of a debtor, and shall establish a joint guarantor except for loans within the scope of collateral, and shall investigate the actual status of assets, credit, and business of a debtor and a guarantor.

(2) Provisions pertaining to the acquisition of secured real estate inflow

A mutual savings bank may acquire non-business real estate only in extenuating circumstances, such as the recovery of non-performing loans, in accordance with Article 18-2 of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act, Article 24 of the Regulations on Payment in Arrears and Loans in Arrears, and the guidance guidelines for the Financial Supervisory Service, and shall not make the acquisition of a security by inflow or acquisition at a price excessively higher than the market price with a view to concealing the decline and loss in

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 28-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, and Defendant 1-C’s damage liability

Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, and Defendant 1-C, at the time of being employed as the representative director of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, were liable for damages of KRW 600 million + KRW 600,000,000,000,000 for KRW 606,000,000,000,000 for KRW 606,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 660,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 6066,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 6066,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

B. Defendant 2’s liability for damages

According to Article 24 of the Regulations on Payment of Loans in Arrears and Article 24 of the Financial Supervisory Service (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2000, Jun. 21, 2000) and the Financial Supervisory Service guidance guidelines (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2000, Jun. 21, 2000) prohibit the Plaintiff from acquiring the collateral at a price higher than that of the previous legal company for the purpose of concealing the decline in the ratio of BISD and the occurrence of losses. Nevertheless, Defendant 2 had Seoul Mutual Savings Bank enter into the instant sales contract, thereby allowing Seoul Mutual Savings Bank to acquire the instant collateral real estate at KRW 6.34 billion with the appraisal price of KRW 4.63 billion with KRW 6.4 billion with KRW 1.3 billion with KRW 6.4 billion with KRW 4.3 billion with KRW 4.4 billion with KRW 3 billion with KRW 1.3 billion with the above provision and guidance guidelines. In addition, in violation of the provision on the payment of retirement compensation for officers, the Plaintiff suffered damages in part of the aforementioned amount of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank.

C. Defendant 3's liability for damages

Defendant 3 has been in office as a full-time auditor of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank and neglected to conduct credit investigations, and due to the failure to take proper measures to preserve claims, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank has an obligation to pay damages of KRW 1492 billion to Sweak and KRW 2.4 billion to the Plaintiff, KRW 1.4 billion to Sweak and KRW 1.4 billion to Sweak and KRW 94 billion to the Plaintiff, KRW 2.9 billion to the loan principal due to an unfair loan of KRW 1.4 billion to Sweak and KRW 1.4 billion to Sweak and KRW 1.4 billion to the Plaintiff, KRW 1.6 billion to the above loan of KRW 3 billion to Sweak and KRW 2.4 billion to the Plaintiff, KRW 1.6 billion to the above loan of KRW 94 billion to Sweak and KRW 2.4 billion to the above loan of KRW 3 billion to Sweak and KRW 1.4 billion to the Plaintiff, KRW 94 billion to the above loan of KRW 3 billion to Sweak 3 billion to the above.

D. Defendant 4's liability for damages

Defendant 4 violated the provision on the payment of retirement consolation money for executive officers, and paid retirement consolation money of KRW 140 million to Nonparty 8 retired on May 31, 2009, and paid KRW 40 million to Nonparty 9 retired on April 30, 2009, and thereby, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank suffered damages of KRW 180 million in total. In handling loans to Handon L&C and Nonparty 10 (△△△△△△△△△), it neglected credit investigation and did not take proper measures to preserve claims. The Seoul Mutual Savings Bank neglected the feasibility of its business, thereby incurring damages from the loan principal of KRW 3.56 billion, KRW 61 million, KRW 670 million, KRW 400,000 due to the loan to Nonparty 10,000 (△△△△△△△△△△△), and thus, the Plaintiff suffered damages from the loan principal of KRW 3400,000,000,000,000,000.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1-A, Defendant 1-B, and Defendant 1-C

(a) Liability for damage concerning excess loans extended to an individual borrower;

1) Facts of recognition

A) Loans to Kenyan U.S.C.

(1) On July 27, 2007, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank extended a credit of 5 billion won to the Kenyan Pream on credit, and the actual borrower of this loan is the water source in which Nonparty 11 was private. The Kenyan Pream was the nominal borrower, and the water source had already exceeded the lending limit of the same person at the time of the loan.

(2) At the time of the above loan, there was no substantial examination of the business prospects, possibility of collecting claims, etc. through the analysis of the financial status of the Kenya and there was no evidence to implement the project, etc., and there was no investigation of the income and property of the non-party 12 on the non-party 12, a joint and several surety.

(3) Of the above loans, KRW 3.5 billion has not been repaid.

(4) On July 27, 2007, Nonparty 1, as the representative director of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, approved the proposal of the Credit Review Board on the said loan in writing.

(5) With respect to the above loan, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank received 3,278.7 square meters ( Address 1 omitted), 1569.7/7/3278 of the equity interest of Nonparty 13 and 755.61525/7/3278 of the equity interest of Nonparty 14 as security with respect to the above loan. If the remainder of the security interest excluding the pertinent loan amount is distributed in proportion to the balance of each borrowed loan, the security interest for the said loan amount is KRW 2.658 million.

B) Loans to Nonparty 5

(1) Seoul Mutual Savings Bank loans the amount of KRW 4 billion on April 30, 2007 to Nonparty 5, and KRW 2.5 billion on September 17, 2007, respectively.

(2) At the time of the above loan, Nonparty 5, an individual entrepreneur conducting real estate business, did not investigate the debt repayment ability of Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 5 discontinued on April 28, 2008.

(3) Although the price of 122,813 square meters of forest land (road address 2 omitted) was indicated as KRW 4.236 billion at the time of the said land, the officially announced value at the time of the said land was KRW 29 million. In addition, the SDR club, which is a joint and several surety of the said loan, was in a state of uncertainty of the ability to perform the guaranteed obligation in a partial capital erosion with the net loss of KRW 58 million at the end of 2006.

(4) The loan was not repaid, and the secured value of the Chungcheong forest is KRW 950 million.

(5) On April 11, 2007, August 27, 2007, Nonparty 1, as the representative director of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, approved each of the above loans by written approval from the credit review board.

(c)loan to Mali-ros-containers;

(1) On July 31, 2007, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank loaned KRW 3.5 billion to Mamo-ro containers. The actual borrower of the above loan was a Mamo-ro investment in which Non-party 15 was a private borrower, and the same person was already in excess of the loan limit at the time of the above loan, and the Mamo-ro investment container was 949% of the debt ratio in 2006 and was part of the capital at the time of the above loan.

(2) On July 26, 2007, Nonparty 1, as the representative director of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, approved the proposal of the Credit Review Board on the said loan in writing.

(3) At the time of the above loan, the market price of the forest land and three lots, other than the forest land ( Address 3 omitted), offered as security, was KRW 2.4 billion. However, on October 22, 2007, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank terminated and terminates the security offered as repayment of KRW 2.15 billion out of the above loan, thereby making up KRW 1.35 billion outstanding loan unpaid.

D) Loans to Mano-faithers

(1) On December 17, 2007, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank loaned KRW 5 billion to Thai-doers. The actual borrower of this loan was a person who was a nominal borrower, and the amount of loan extended to the same person at the time of the loan.

(2) At the time of the above loan, the draft review report, etc. states that the appraisal price was 812,795,000 as a collateral, but the land actually was not provided as collateral, and there was no investigation as to the income and property of the non-party representative director non-party 16, who is a joint guarantor, as well as Non-party 16.

(3) On December 12, 2007, Nonparty 1, as the representative director of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, approved the draft of the Credit Review Board in writing.

(4) Of the above loans, KRW 4 billion has not been repaid.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 5-1 through 19, Gap evidence 6-1 through 24, Gap evidence 7-1 through 15, Gap evidence 8-1 through 25, Gap evidence 58-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Occurrence of damages liability

According to the facts found above, loans extended to the Kenyak U.S. P., non-party 5, Maro-Mason, and Maloyman were in violation of the limit of individual borrower credit extension under the mutual savings bank law and relevant regulations, or neglected to investigate the credit of the borrower, and only joint and several sureties who are not formally able to repay debts without obtaining any security, and neglected to take measures for the preservation of claims. The representative director of the Seoul mutual savings bank, approved each of the above loans illegally and unreasonably, as mentioned above, is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the Seoul mutual savings bank pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. The non-party 1, who was the inheritor of the non-party 1, and the non-party 1-B, and the non-party 1-C (hereinafter referred to as the "the above Defendants"), who was inherited from the deceased non-party 1, is liable to compensate for the damages in accordance with the above shares of inheritance.

3) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

A) The defendants' assertion

In the situation where Nonparty 17, the former representative director, extended loans to Nonparty 17 in excess of the limit on water supply and dosage, and there was no possibility of repayment of overdue loans, Nonparty 1, the former representative director, extended loans to the Plaintiff to minimize damages of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was a substitute refund loan and there was a new damage. Nonparty 1 did not violate the duty of care.

B) Determination as to the loan portion of the names of the Kenyan U.S. P. and Mayman

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of each statement on loan No. 12, Nonparty 1’s loan was in excess of KRW 10 billion prior to taking office as the representative director of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, and it was difficult for Nonparty 1 to repay debts due to lack of collateral. Nonparty 1 performed loan as the representative director after taking office and performed loan to the extent of KRW 1.2 billion out of the loan in the name of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank. The actual repayment of the loan was 3 billion out of KRW 400 million, and the actual repayment of the loan was 50 million, and the actual repayment of the loan was 450 million out of the loan in the name of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank. Accordingly, it can be viewed that the loan was actually made out of KRW 1.2 billion, and the actual repayment of the loan was made out of KRW 300 million,000,000,000,000,000,000.

C) Determination on the loan part of the name of Nonparty 5 and the name of the Spanmo-ro Spanish container

According to the above evidence, Nonparty 17, who was the former representative director of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, was anticipated by the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, requested temporary loans to the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank in order to conceal the excess of the loan limit of the same person and received loans of KRW 22.3 billion in the name of Suwon on February 21, 2007, and the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was used to repay the loan in the name of Susung Mutual Savings Bank to Nonparty 5, who operated Esal Construction. However, even though it was used to pay the loan in the name of Susung Mutual Savings Bank, it cannot be deemed that the repayment of the loan in the name of Susung Mutual Savings Bank and the existing loan in the name of Non-party 5 or Esal Construction Seoul Mutual Savings Bank is the same or that the repayment of the loan in the name of Susung Mutual Savings Bank to Non-party 5 or Esal Construction's existing loan in the name of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank cannot be deemed to have been extended. In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the loan in Osal Construction constitutes a refund loan.

4) Scope of liability for damages

A) Loans to Kenyan U.S.C.

The amount of damages suffered by the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank due to a loan to Kenyak U.S. Investment shall be calculated by deducting 1.2 billion won used to repay the existing loan to the principal and interest of the loan at KRW 3.5 billion, which is the remainder of the loan, and if the actual borrower, who is the Plaintiff, deducts 2.658 billion won from the security value of the loan to the real borrower, provided as security, the amount of damages suffered by the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank due to the loan to Kenyak U.S. Investment. Investment.

B) Loans to Nonparty 5

The amount of damages suffered by the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank from loans to Nonparty 5 is the amount of interest or delay damages based on the rate of 550 million won and the agreement on the outstanding principal of the loan, excluding the amount of KRW 950 million, which the Plaintiff deducted from the amount of the remaining principal and interest of the loan 6.5 billion.

(c)loan to Mali-ros-containers;

The amount of damages sustained by the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank due to the loan to Materns Cons with the loan is 1.1 billion won of the outstanding loan principal and interest or delay damages based on the agreed rate, excluding the security value of the forest and fields in Pakistan, the plaintiff himself/herself deducts from the remaining principal and interest of the loan 3.5 billion won.

D) Loans to Mano-faithers

The amount of damages suffered by the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank due to loans to Materns for the foregoing outstanding principal amounting to KRW 4.086 billion shall be KRW 3 billion used for the repayment of loans in the name of Materns, KRW 350 million used for the repayment of loans in the name of Materns, KRW 497 million used for the repayment of loans in the name of Materns, and KRW 239 million in the outstanding principal of the loan in the name of Nonparty 18, and interest or damages for delay based on the agreed rate.

E) Total amount of damages

Therefore, the total damages suffered by the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank due to Nonparty 1’s act of lending in excess of the limit of individual borrower’s credit extension amount is KRW 6.889 billion of the outstanding principal (=50 million + KRW 1.1 billion + KRW 239 billion) and the interest or delay damages based on the agreed rate.

5) Limitation on liability for damages

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to evidence Nos. 7-5, 6, 23-9, 31-1, 2, 3, and 12, Nonparty 1 collected KRW 19.8 billion from the investment of the representative director after taking office and making efforts to recover relevant loans. Nonparty 1 received new shares or donated shares to Seoul Mutual Savings Bank to compensate for the insolvency of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, and the amount paid to Seoul Mutual Savings Bank exceeds KRW 3.2 billion. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank filed a lawsuit for damages compensation against Nonparty 17, the former representative director responsible for insolvency of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, and the judgment became final and conclusive, taking into account the above facts as well as the facts that Nonparty 1 did not make any further proceedings for damages against Nonparty 17, the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank’s internal decision-making process and its internal decision-making process, including, but not limited to, the fact that Nonparty 1 had been actually taking office by the representative director of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank. In addition to such recognition, Nonparty 1 made efforts to normalize the above Seoul Mutual Savings Bank’s internal decision-making process.

6) Sub-determination

Therefore, Nonparty 1 is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from loans extended by Seoul Mutual Savings Bank in excess of the limit of individual borrower credit extension, credit investigation, and credit preservation measures. The Defendants, who inherited the liability for damages of Nonparty 1, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff at a rate of 33,333,33 won (1 billion won x 1/33) each within the scope of the inherited property from the deceased Nonparty 1, and the damages incurred therefrom from February 4, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, to dispute the existence and scope of the above Defendants from February 4, 2014 to June 9, 2017, which is the date the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. Whether liability for damages relating to the PF loan is established

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 2

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Acquisition of secured real estate related to the development of the technology industry

가) 서울상호저축은행은 번창산업개발이 대출원리금 합계 11,436,411,974원(= 대출원금 6,261,111,555원 + 이자 5,175,300,419원, 이하 ‘이 사건 대출금채권’이라 한다)의 지급을 연체하자 그 담보부동산인 서울 구로구 (주소 5 생략) 소재 □□□ ◇◇◇ 주상복합아파트 ☆☆☆호, ▽▽▽호, ◎◎◎호, ◁◁◁호, ▷▷▷호, ♤♤♤호, ♡♡♡호, ●●●호, ▲▲▲호, ■■■호(이하 ‘이 사건 담보 부동산’이라 한다)에 대하여 2011. 6. 2. 신탁자인 케이비부동산신탁에 감정가 46억 1,000만 원보다 180% 높은 가격으로 공매를 요청하였다.

B) The K non-real estate trust proceeds from the public auction of the instant secured real estate. The appraisal value of the instant secured real estate was calculated as KRW 4.61 billion. The appraisal value of the instant secured real estate was calculated as KRW 8.29 billion. The K non-real estate trust proceeds from the public auction for both days on June 13, 2011 (the first and second public auction date) and on June 14, 201 (the third and fourth public auction date) (the third public auction date).

C) Upon the failure of the above public auction on June 16, 201, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank concluded a private contract with the effect that it would purchase the instant real estate trust and the instant secured real estate at KRW 6.34 billion (excluding value-added tax 397,135,270) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

D) Upon the conclusion of the instant sales contract, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank treated the amount of KRW 6,260,357,801 out of the principal amount of the instant loan claims to be paid as the priority beneficiary of the instant secured real estate (hereinafter “instant secured transfer”).

E) On June 10, 2011, Defendant 2 signed a public sale procedure for the instant secured real estate in relation to the instant secured real estate loan claims for the development of the prosperity of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, and signed the instant secured real estate as a model to bring the instant secured real estate into KRW 6.34 billion, which is the principal amount of the instant loan claims.

2) Guidelines for the Financial Supervisory Service related to the introduction of securities

On January 8, 2010, the Financial Supervisory Service sent the following official documents to the Korea Federation of Savings Banks as the title "request for guidance on the business of non-business real estate," and Seoul Mutual Savings Banks received the said official documents around that time.

2. In addition, it is found that some savings banks have introduced non-business real estate at a price higher than the former legal entity (auction appraised amount) or neglect to recognize non-business real estate loss during the holding period in order to fully implement the business guidance due to inflow of non-business real estate and possession of non-business real estate, which is included in the main text. 2. In addition, it is found that there are cases such as inducing the former legal entity to sell non-business real estate, or neglecting to recognize non-business real estate loss during the holding period. 3. Accordingly, it is possible for savings banks to cooperate with each other so that the contents of the request can be faithfully implemented. In addition, at the time of the inspection of the inspection, our Won is scheduled to operate as an intensive inspection of the status of non-business real estate management. - In addition, it is expected that the latter is scheduled to establish a new provision that prohibits the acquisition of non-business real estate at a price higher than that higher than that higher than that set forth by the former legal entity at the time of the purchase of non-business real estate.

3) Payment of retirement consolation benefits

A) The Seoul Mutual Savings Bank stipulated in Article 50 of the Articles of Incorporation as to the payment of retirement consolation benefits to officers, “the remuneration of directors shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders” (Article 1), and “the payment of retirement allowances to directors shall be made in accordance with the payment rules of retirement allowances for officers which have gone through the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders” (Article 2). Accordingly, the provisions pertaining to the payment of retirement allowances for officers

The purpose of this Regulation is to prescribe matters concerning the payment of retirement allowances for executives under Article 50 (2) of the Articles of Incorporation. The provisions of Article 2 shall apply to executive officers appointed at a general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter referred to as "executive officers") at the time of their retirement. When an executive officer has retired [paid] Article 3, the amount obtained by deducting the following standard rate of payment according to the period of continuous service of the position as at the time of his/her retirement shall be paid as retirement allowances. The provisions of Article 4 [the calculation of the number of continuous service years [the number of years of continuous service] of the senior executive officer "(3.5)" and Article 4 [the calculation of the number of years of continuous service of the senior executive officers [the number of years of continuous service] shall be based on the following: The amount of consolation benefits for executive officers who have retired from office shall be paid within the scope of 10 years of continuous service or less than 15 years of continuous service (the amount of consolation benefits for less than the rate of one year shall be paid within 21/13 years of his/her retirement benefits for one year after his/her retirement.

B) On October 4, 2011, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank decided to pay KRW 62,50,000,000 corresponding to the annual salary as retirement consolation money to Nonparty 6’s audit committee retired on September 27, 201 according to its intent. At that time, Defendant 2 signed a letter of goods related to the president as the president.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-4, Gap evidence 12-1 through 9, Gap evidence 13-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 27-3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, 30, 31, 36, 37, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination on liability for damages related to the inflow of the instant security

1) Defendant 2, as the representative director of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, purchased the pertinent secured real estate in the amount of KRW 6.34 billion, which is the higher price than KRW 4.61 billion, the appraised value of which is KRW 1.73 billion. Defendant 2, as the representative director of the said Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, and redeemed the secured obligation (the principal amount of KRW 6.44 billion) based on the acquisition price of KRW 6.34 billion.4 billion, as seen earlier.

2) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as above and evidence Nos. 26 and 32 as a whole, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 2 committed, or neglected to perform, an act in violation of the statutes or the articles of incorporation by intention or negligence in the introduction of the instant security, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2 on this part is without merit.

A) The first estimated sale price of the secured real estate in this case was KRW 8.29 billion, but this is the amount calculated by the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank upon request from the KF real estate trust. In addition, the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank extended the maturity of the instant loan claim by referring to the transportation convenience of the secured real estate in this case and the surrounding convenience facilities, etc. around February 2008, before Defendant 2 was employed as the representative director, and taking into account the location conditions such as the transportation convenience of the secured real estate in this case and the surrounding convenience facilities, and the appraised on January 20, 2006, KRW 6.6773.7 billion.

B) Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was unable to collect the principal and interest of the instant loan claims at the time of the entry of the instant collateral. However, as a borrower’s industrial development discontinued, the instant loan claims were difficult to recover as non-performing loans. As long as there was no other means to recover the instant loan claims other than the instant secured real estate at the time, Defendant 2’s entry of the instant secured real estate into the instant secured real estate seems to be an inevitable measure to recover the claims.

C) The instant loan claims were non-performing loans, and in the case of non-performing loans, the market price of the instant loan claims is formed at a level of 60 to 70% of the value of the collateral. As such, the actual value of the instant loan claims is equivalent to KRW 3227 million, which is 70% of the appraised value of the instant secured real estate (=61 billion won x 70%) (i.e., 4., 4.60 million). However, the instant loan entry measures are to repay only the principal out of the instant loan claims and to have interest claims owned as it is, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank suffers any damage as long as it acquires the ownership of the instant real estate, which is higher than the actual value of the instant loan claims.

D) Even if the acquisition price at the time of the entry of the instant collateral was erroneously set at a higher level than the appraised value of the instant collateral, from the standpoint of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, it is merely a decrease in the unsecured non-performing loan claim of KRW 1.73 million out of the instant loan claims due to the calculation of the said acquisition price. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the amount equivalent to KRW 1.73 billion as the damages of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, as it is, as it is, as the development of the instant loan claims, was discontinued and it was not a means to secure or recover the instant loan claims other than the instant secured real estate.

E) The instant loan claims were claims arising from loans extended by Defendant 2 on or around February 2006, five years prior to the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank’s service, and Defendant 2 did not intend to gain personal benefits or conceal his occupational errors due to the introduction of the instant collateral. Rather, Defendant 2 had the intention to improve the BS ratio of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank by reducing non-performing loans through the introduction of the instant collateral.

C. Determination as to the payment of retirement consolation benefits

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

5. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 3

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification of the first instance court Nos. 29 through 4 as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O Modification parts

“If Defendant 3 knew that each of the above loans was illegal or unjust out, or he paid little attention on the documents related to the loan, it is insufficient to recognize that he/she had been able to have been able to know that he/she had been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to exercise due diligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that he/she had been able to exercise due diligence.”

6. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 4

A. Claim for damages related to the payment of retirement consolation benefits

1) Facts of recognition

According to Gap evidence Nos. 14-1 through 5, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank paid the non-party 9 executive director who retired as of April 30, 2009 with retirement consolation money, KRW 40 million on May 18, 2009, KRW 130 million on June 16, 2009 to the non-party 8 who retired as of May 31, 2009, KRW 10 million on June 30, 2009, and KRW 10 million on June 30, 2009, respectively, and Defendant 4 signed his/her name as a director (non-registration) on the board of directors of each product.

2) The relevant regulations of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank

As described in paragraph (a)(iii) above.

3) Occurrence of damages liability

According to the above facts, Defendant 4 had Seoul Mutual Savings Bank pay a sum of KRW 180 million (= + KRW 100 million + KRW 130 million + KRW 100 million + KRW 100 million) to Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 8, who was an executive officer of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, even though there is no reason prescribed in Article 5 of the Regulations on the Payment of Retirement Benefits for Officers (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”), and thus, caused damages to Seoul Mutual Savings Bank.

The defendant 4 asserts that he paid retirement consolation money with the approval of the non-party 19 who is a major shareholder at the time of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank.

However, even if the articles of incorporation has already stipulated the grounds for payment and amount of retirement consolation benefits for directors and auditors, it is possible to determine matters concerning the payment of retirement consolation benefits applicable only to the relevant case through a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, even if the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders was not made, and even if the general meeting of shareholders was held, it is difficult to deem that the same resolution was made if retirement consolation benefits were paid according to the same resolution, it would have been paid. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the written statement of evidence Nos. 5 and 11 stated in the evidence No. 5 and No. 11 stated in the evidence No. 8 was made by the controlling shareholder of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank at the time of the payment of retirement consolation benefits to the non-party 9 and the non-party

4) Scope and limitation of liability for damages

The Seoul Mutual Savings Bank shall be deemed to have suffered a loss equivalent to the amount disbursed due to the payment of unfair retirement consolation benefits to Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 8. Therefore, the amount of such loss is KRW 180 million.

However, there is no personal benefit that Defendant 4 received from the above payment of retirement consolation benefits, retirement consolation benefits paid by the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank to Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 8 can be considered as compensation due to the retirement before the expiration of the term of office in the process of improving the structure of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank; the decision of the payment of retirement consolation benefits and structural problems inside the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank were also causes of damages; Defendant 4 signed the written payment of retirement consolation benefits to Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 8 as a director, but there is no evidence that he had the right to perform duties equivalent to that of the director, and there was no final approval authority for the payment of retirement consolation benefits, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the liability of Defendant 4 is limited to KRW 20 million.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, from August 22, 2013 to June 9, 2017, Defendant 4, the day following the delivery day of the copy of the complaint of this case filed by the Plaintiff with respect to KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. Claim for damages related to defective loans against Han Mandon L&C

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Claim for damages related to bad loans against Nonparty 10

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C shall be accepted within the scope of each recognition as above, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as of the ground. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 4 shall be accepted within the scope of recognition as well as the remaining claims shall be dismissed as of the ground. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant 4 ordering payment in excess of the above recognition amount shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 shall be dismissed as of the revoked portion, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 shall be dismissed as of the ground. Since the judgment of first instance is unfair in conclusion with different conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 2 shall be accepted, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 shall be dismissed, since the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 3 shall be dismissed as of first instance.

Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Judge)

1. The ratio of equity capital to the risk assets of banks as determined by the Bank for International Settlements;

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the actual borrower of the loan to Nonparty 5 was in excess of the loan limit of the same person at the time of loan. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank borrowed KRW 22.3 billion from the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank around February 21, 2007 in order to conceal the excess of the loan limit of the same person on the loan limit of the same person on the loan amount, it appropriated funds for the repayment of the loan amount of KRW 6.2 billion to the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank of Korea, E.S., Inc. (hereinafter “E.”), which was operated by Nonparty 5, for the repayment of the loan amount of KRW 6.2 billion on the loan amount of the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank of Korea, and the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank of Korea thereafter made the above loan in the name of Nonparty 5 in order to repay the loan amount in the above Susung Mutual Savings Bank in the name of Nonparty 5.

3) The deceased non-party 1’s heir is the spouse of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the mother of the above Defendants, but the non-party 2 also inherited the non-party 2’s inheritance shares following the death of the non-party 1, and the above Defendants have succeeded to the inheritance shares of the non-party 2. Accordingly, the Defendants’ inheritance shares following the deceased non-party 1’s death