The validity of the suspension order of payment issued by the Minister of Finance and Economy which fails to meet the public interest requirements under Article 23-2 (1) of the Mutual Saving

Even if an order to suspend the payment of the Minister of Finance and Economy under Article 23-2 (1) of the Mutual Savings and Finance Act was issued without meeting the public interest requirements that the management or asset status of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company might not be sound and thus undermine the public interest, the above order to suspend the payment shall not be null and void automatically, since the defect in appearance is not a grave and obvious defect in appearance.

Article 23-2 of the Mutual Saving and Financing Act

Freeboards

Korea Mutual Savings Bank

Seoul Central District Court (84Gahap2852) in the first instance trial

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the succeeding members ordering payment is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim as to that part is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 13,776,436 won with 10,000 won per annum from September 24, 1983 to November 22 of the same year, the amount of 8 percent per annum from the next day to January 22, 1984, the amount of 9 percent per annum from the next day to February 16 of the same year, and the amount of 13 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's Nices appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into four parts, one for the first and second instances, one for the plaintiff, and the other for the defendant, respectively.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with 13 percent per annum from September 24, 1983 to the service date of a copy of the gusheshesheshes in this case, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff of the first and second instance court.

1. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 (Newcom 3 (Newcom 3) and Gap evidence Nos. 2 (B) to which the authenticity is established by the testimony of the witness at the court of first instance and the witness at the court of first instance, and each testimony of the above witness and witness's right leather as well as the whole purport of the pleading, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that on July 23, 1983, the plaintiff made 30,000 interest rate of 30,000 won for the defendant (the trade name at the time of mutual savings and finance company at the time of mutual savings and finance company) and the borrowed money (the deposit in the mutual savings and finance company of the same nature as the term deposit in the bank) and the deposit with the defendant on October 23, 1983 at the maturity rate of 1,2 (the check sign and content), 4-1, 2-1, 5-1, 3, 4, 31, 332, 333 (D of the original statement of the original statement.

2. However, the defendant alleged that the amount exceeding 10,00,000 won per head of the loan exceeds 10,000 among the loans deposited with the defendant as of February 17, 1984 shall not be paid until February 17, 1987. Thus, the above order of suspension of payment exceeding 10,00,000 won shall not be issued until 10,000,000. The plaintiff's order of suspension of payment is issued under Article 23-2 (1) of the Mutual Saving and Finance Act because it is issued under the condition that the above order of suspension of payment would be harmful to the public interest due to the lack of sound operation or property of the mutual savings and finance company, and the above order of suspension of payment shall be issued under Article 23-1 (1) 6-1 (approval) and 7-1 (1) of the above 9-1 (2) of the 19-year loan interest rate per head of the above 18-year loan interest rate per head of the above.

3. Accordingly, the defendant sought interest rate of 10,00,000 won from Sep. 24, 1983 to Nov. 22, 1984, which is the day following the date when the plaintiff received interest from the above loan debt which became due, and the interest rate of 10,000,00 won, from the date when the plaintiff received interest, and 13% per annum from Nov. 22, 1984; 8% per annum from the next day to Feb. 16, 1984; 9% per annum of the above order to suspend payment; 13% per annum from the next day to the date of full delivery; 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 300,000 won per annum from the next day to the day of the above order to suspend payment; 30,000 won per annum as alleged above; 40,000 won per annum after the date of the above order to suspend payment; 300,309,09.

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim of this case (the main claim was dismissed at the court of first instance) is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance exceeds the above recognition scope and is unfair by admitting it, part of the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance is minimum, and the plaintiff's claim concerning the same part is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges High-class (Presiding Judge) Yol Man-dong