The purpose and interpretation method of the provisions of Article 37-3 (1) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act which imposes an oligopolistic stockholder jointly liable for the obligations related to the deposits, etc. of the mutual savings and finance company.

Article 37-3 (1) of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Act No. 6429 of March 28, 2001)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1484 decided May 1, 200

Han Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Yoon Jin-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na75369 delivered on August 31, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 37-3(1) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 6429, Mar. 28, 2001; hereinafter "the Act") provides that "executive officers (excluding auditors) of the mutual savings and finance company and oligopolistic shareholders (referring to oligopolistic shareholders as defined in Article 39(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes) shall be jointly and severally liable with the mutual savings and finance company for the obligations related to the deposit, etc. of the mutual savings and finance company." The purport of the provision that the above responsibility is prescribed for oligopolistic shareholders is to change the name to a mutual savings bank under the Act amended by Act No. 6429, Mar. 28, 2001) to de facto control oligopolistic shareholders in the mutual savings and finance company (the name was changed to a "mutual savings bank") is to realize the liability management of the mutual savings and protect creditors of the mutual savings and finance company, such as deposit holders, etc. by preventing the poor management. Thus, oligopolistic shareholders shall be interpreted in cases where they have caused influence over the mutual savings and finance company and finance company.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is liable to pay subrogated payment to the plaintiff who acquired the rights of depositors by paying insurance money to the depositors, on the premise that the defendant is jointly and severally liable with the mutual savings and finance company as an oligopolistic shareholder of the Han Credit Depository (hereinafter " Han Credit Depository") prior to the merger until December 29, 199, as the oligopolistic shareholder of the Han Credit Depository (hereinafter " Han Credit Depository"), before the merger, the defendant is liable to pay subrogated payment to the plaintiff who acquired the rights of depositors pursuant to Article 37-3 (1) of the Act. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant exercised the influence over the management of Han Credit Depository as an oligopolistic shareholder of the Han Credit Depository, but there is no insufficient result in the insolvency. Rather, according to the facts acknowledged by the relevant evidence, the defendant transferred one of the management rights of the Han Credit Depository under the sound management of Han Credit Depository (hereinafter "Dong Credit Depository"), but it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts-finding of Article 17 of the Act and the records.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)