The case holding that the Korea Technology Finance Corporation's mistake in the material part of a juristic act where it provided credit guarantee to Gap who is a fraudulent financial transaction;

The term "Information Exchange and Regulation of Financial Institutions" is regulated as an insolvent financial trader pursuant to the "Rules for Financial Institutions' Information Exchange and Regulation, and thus, A is unable to obtain a loan or credit guarantee in his/her own name while running an enterprise under his/her name, B with his/her own photograph attached to the resident registration certificate of B, with his/her seal imprint certificate, a certificate of personal seal impression, and a certificate of business registration, and also applied for a credit guarantee in his/her name at the time of applying for a credit guarantee. Therefore, if the Korea Technology Finance Corporation misleads B as the business owner of the guaranteed company and conducts a credit guarantee investigation, it is obvious that the Korea Technology Finance Corporation would not conclude a credit guarantee if the applicant for the credit guarantee was aware of the fact that he/she is A, and if the applicant for the credit guarantee was aware of the fact that he/she is a bad financial trader, it constitutes

Article 109(1) of the Civil Act, Articles 1, 12, 13, and 29 of the Financial Assistance to New Technology Businesses Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Attorney Cho Young-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na43571 delivered on February 12, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

(1) On August 11, 190, the court below decided that the defendant's non-party 2 (the above non-party 1's punishment) was legitimate in the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 (the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 8's personal credit guarantee business statement to guarantee the above loan by obtaining a loan of 25,00,00 won from the plaintiff. The plaintiff extended a loan of 25,00 won to the non-party 2 pursuant to the defendant's credit guarantee under the non-party 1's credit guarantee business statement to the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's credit guarantee business statement and the defendant's non-party 2's non-party 1's credit guarantee business statement.

In addition, the argument that the above mistake was caused by the defendant's gross negligence is in the trial court, and it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)