[1] In a case where a community credit cooperative cannot return a deposit account due to a shortage of funds, whether the depositor can exercise the right to claim a return of deposit against the National Federation of Savings Banks (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a deposit contract is null and void as an expression of intention by a person responsible for managing community credit cooperatives, where the executive director of community credit cooperatives received deposits normally through a deposit intermediary in order to raise its own business funds

[3] The case holding that the executive director of a community credit cooperative shall be held liable for the employer of the community credit cooperative, but shall be held liable for negligence by 40%

[4] Nature of the duty to direct and supervise community credit cooperatives by the National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives and whether tort liability based on such duty is established (negative)

[1] The purpose of Articles 13, 19, 20, and 57 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act is to promote community credit cooperatives by enhancing the credibility of community credit cooperatives by guaranteeing that community credit cooperatives shall pay deposits, etc. to all genuine deposit holders within the prescribed amount of money if community credit cooperatives are unable to return deposits, etc. due to shortage of funds. However, in order to ensure the proper use and expansion of community credit funds and to prevent refund to unfair deposit holders, community credit cooperatives shall make a decision of dissolution for the shortage of funds and make an application for payment by subrogation through a certain procedure, such as a resolution of the Fund Management Committee. Therefore, even if community credit cooperatives have not made an application for payment by subrogation to the National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives because they did not pay deposits, etc., but they refused payment by subrogation to the National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives, it is reasonable to interpret that the National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives can claim the return of such deposits, etc. against the direct deposit holders effective against the above depository. In such case, the National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives shall make a payment by subrogation within the extent applied at the time of registration dissolution.

[2] The case holding that, in case where executive directors of community credit cooperatives receive money as a deposit from the deposit holders with intent to gather bonds for the purpose of raising their business funds, not to make a deposit contract with the deposit holders, the expression of intent to the deposit is not significant, and in light of the fact that the deposit transaction was made directly with the above executive director through the deposit broker, such as additional payment of interest at an interest rate other than the interest specified in the deposit contract, the deposit transaction was made in addition to the interest specified in the deposit contract, it can be seen that if the deposit holders paid ordinary attention, they would not have the intention of the above executive director, and thus, the expression of intent shall be null and void, and therefore each deposit contract between the deposit holders and the community credit cooperatives shall be null and void.

[3] An employee of the managing director, etc. of a community credit cooperative who is in charge of deposit business of the community credit cooperative and receives funds provided by the depositors as a bond for the financing of business funds of the managing director, and acquires them by pretending to receive them as a deposit for the community credit cooperative. As such, the act of acquiring them by deceit is conducted in connection with the business of receiving deposits of the community credit cooperative, thereby causing damage to the deposit owner in relation to the management of the affairs of the community credit cooperative. Therefore, the community credit cooperative is liable for compensation as an employer. However, since the deposit owner can recognize the negligence of the deposit owner in light of the circumstance leading to the deposit contract in this case, the contents of the deposit contract in this case, and the receipt of unfair advance interest and interest by the deposit owner, the amount of damages to be compensated by the

[4] The duty of guidance and supervision to be borne by the National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives under Articles 46 and 54 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act is an abstract and general duty in light of the purpose of the National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives with a view to promoting the common interest and the sound development of member cooperatives, and therefore, the deposit holders cannot be held liable for tort against the National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives, not its member cooperatives.

[1] Article 57 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, Articles 19, 20, and / [2] Article 107 of the Civil Code / [3] Articles 756, 396, / [4] Articles 46 and 54 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1004 Decided July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1292)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[3] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1418 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1209)

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

B. Nai and 23 others (Attorney Yang Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Sungsan Saemaul Bank and one other (Attorneys Kim Sang-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs Park Jong-young 20,000,000 won with the amount of 10,000,000 won and the amount of 10,000 won to the plaintiff Park Young-young from March 19, 194, with the amount of 10,000,000 won and the amount of 5% per annum from March 22, 1994 to August 24, 1994, and the amount of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendants except for the plaintiffs' interest in entertainment, gambling, and leap base are dismissed.

3. The defendant Sungsan Saemaeul Community Fund shall pay to the remaining plaintiffs, excluding the plaintiff Park So-young, the amount of money as shown in the attached Table 3, and each of the above amounts, with the rate of five percent per annum from the date of each interest-generating on the same list to December 21, 1995, and with the rate of twenty five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. All of the plaintiffs except for the plaintiff's interest in entertainment, barracks, and leap base, the remaining conjunctive claims against the defendant Sungsan Saemaeul Saemaul Depository and the preliminary claims against the defendant's National Federation of Korea are dismissed.

5. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs Park Heung-young, Park Young-young and the defendants shall be borne by the defendants, and the part arising between the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant Sungsan Saemaeul Community Credit Cooperatives shall be five minutes, and such two minutes shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, the remainder by the above defendants, the remaining plaintiffs, and the part arising between the defendant's remaining plaintiffs and the defendant's National Federation

The defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs the amount of each deposit and each of the above amounts listed in the separate sheet No. 2 with 5% per annum from the date of each deposit listed in the same list to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

If Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, evidence 2-1 through 5, evidence 3-1 through 8, evidence 4-1 through 3, evidence 5-1 through 3, evidence 5-1 through 3, evidence 8-1 and evidence 8-2, the plaintiffs' interest on the deposit amount in the same list on the deposit date in the attached list No. 2-1 and 2 shall be determined as interest rate on the same list and it shall be recognized that the bank received each passbook in the same list on the deposit date in the attached list No. 2-1 to 3, and the fact that the plaintiff 4 through 8 as stated in the attached list No. 1-1 to 3, and the plaintiff 5 through 16 shall be paid to the plaintiff 17 through 19, until April 14, 1994, and the plaintiff 23 through 25, 24, and 24, respectively.

2. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s stuffed trees, barrackss, and leaps

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant credit cooperative is obligated to pay the above deposits and interest and damages for delay from the day following the payment date of each interest payment to the above plaintiffs, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The above plaintiffs asserts that the defendant's National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives (hereinafter the defendant's Federation) is jointly and severally liable to pay the above deposits and interest and delay damages to the above plaintiffs pursuant to Article 57 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act.

(1) First of all, the provisions of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act provides that the Safety Fund shall be established and operated in the defendant federation in order to guarantee the refund of deposits and installment savings paid by members of a credit cooperative under Article 57 of the Act, and to protect the property of its members and promote the sound fostering of the credit cooperative, and that the credit cooperative may discharge its obligations, such as deposits, in lieu of the relevant credit cooperative, as determined by the Safety Fund Management Committee. According to the Safety Fund Management Committee delegated by the Act, if a credit cooperative which completed the registration of dissolution is unable to pay its deposits, etc., it may apply for payment by proxy to the defendant federation. The defendant federation in receipt of the above application shall, if necessary, make payment by subrogation (Articles 13, 19, and 20), after deliberation and decision by the Fund Management Committee, after examining the facts as to the subject of payment by subrogation and the scope of subrogation (Article 13, 19, and 20), and the scope of subrogation by proxy shall be the principal of the relevant credit cooperative's financial statements as of the date the resolution of dissolution, and its amount of payment by subrogation shall be more than 10.

The purpose of each of the above provisions is to promote community credit cooperatives by enhancing the credibility of community credit cooperatives by guaranteeing that the defendant federation managing community credit cooperatives shall pay deposits, etc. to all genuine deposit holders within the prescribed amount of money if the community credit cooperatives are unable to return the deposits, etc. due to the shortage of funds. However, it shall be deemed that the community credit cooperatives shall make a resolution of dissolution to secure the proper use and expansion of the safe fund and to prevent the refund to the illegal deposit holders, and only when the community credit cooperatives files an application for subrogation after the registration of dissolution, the resolution of the Fund Management Committee shall be made. Therefore, even if the community credit cooperatives failed to pay the deposits, etc. to the defendant federation because it did not have the funds to pay the deposits, etc., and the defendant federation may claim the return of the deposits, etc. directly against the defendant federation, unless the community credit cooperatives paid the deposits, etc. to the defendant federation, and in this case, the defendant federation shall pay it to the deposit holders within the maximum amount applied at the time of the registration of dissolution as at the time of the credit cooperative.

However, if Gap evidence No. 11, Gap evidence No. 12, and Eul evidence No. 13's evidence No. 12 collected the whole purport of pleading, the defendant's credit cooperative shall make a resolution of dissolution at a general meeting of shareholders on July 26, 1994 and appoint non-party No. 1 as a liquidator, and make a registration of dissolution until August 2, 1994, and dismiss the above plaintiffs' application for subrogation on the same day on the ground that the defendant federation did not recognize the above plaintiffs' deposit amount as a normal deposit transaction. According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances such as that each of the above deposits is not a valid contract, the defendant federation is obligated to pay each of the above deposits within the scope of Article 21 of the amended Safety Fund Management Regulations, which was enforced at the time of the registration of dissolution of the above credit cooperative, and interest and delay damages therefrom from the following day.

(2) As to this, the above contract was concluded between the non-party 1, the executive director of the defendant credit cooperative, and the above plaintiffs. At the time of concluding the contract, the above contract was concluded with the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, the above non-party 1, in addition to the ordinary interest rate of the defendant credit cooperative for the financing of the housing in consideration of the non-party 1, the construction business company that the above non-party 1, at the time of concluding the contract, and was paid the deposit fee of 1-1.5% of the deposit amount, the non-party 1, the deposit broker, was merely creating a nominal bond through the non-party 1's maximum use, damage, e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the deposit broker, the e., the e., the e., the e., the defendant's 1's agent did not know or was not aware of the above 1's defense.

In other words, among the above plaintiffs, the defendant federation asserts that the above deposits in the name of the plaintiff YY in the name of the plaintiff YY merely borrowed the name of the plaintiff YY and distributed the old accounts. This constitutes the existing financial assets that did not verify the real name under Article 3 (3) of the Emergency Financial Order of Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (Presidential Emergency Order No. 16 of August 12, 1993) or verified as not the real name, and thus, the relevant deposit cannot be refunded. However, the fact that the plaintiff YY is a son of plaintiff YY in the name of the plaintiff YY does not necessarily mean that the above deposit in the name of the plaintiff YY is an unreal financial transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant federation is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the defendant federation is obligated to pay the above amount of each deposit and each of the above plaintiffs to the defendant's safe and each of the above plaintiffs with 5% interest rate per annum from the day following the date of the above interest payment to August 24, 1994, and interest and delay damages at the rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of the full payment of the complaint of this case.

3. Determination as to the claim by the remaining plaintiffs except for the plaintiff's interest in entertainment, stuffs, and leaps

A. Determination on the claim against the Defendant’s credit cooperative

(1) Judgment as to the main claim

Under the premise that the deposit transaction pursuant to each of the above passbooks was due to the deposit contract duly formed between the defendant and his treasury, the defendant treasury sought payment of each of the above deposits and the interest and delay damages from the deposit date. The defendant treasury made each of the above deposit contracts by the non-party 1, the executive director of the defendant treasury, and the other plaintiffs knew or could have known that the above non-party 1's declaration of intention was not due to the fact that the above contract was made by the non-party 1, the executive director of the defendant treasury, and that the above non-party 1's declaration of intention was invalid.

Therefore, the above non-party 1 who used the above evidence and evidence Nos. 9-2 through 8, Eul's No. 7-3, Eul's No. 8-1 to 15, Eul's No. 12-1 to 7, and Eul's No. 12-1 to 8, using the above deposit account No. 9-1 to 9 for the purpose of raising funds under the name of the above non-party 2's bank account No. 9-1 to 9, the above non-party 1 is not allowed to use the above deposit account No. 6's maximum deposit account No. 9 to obtain deposit money no more than 3 months' interest and no more than 1-2.5%'s deposit account No. 9 to the non-party 2's bank account no more than 9's own account No.

According to the above facts, the above non-party 1, the executive director of the defendant's treasury, received each of the above amounts from the remaining plaintiffs as deposits with intent to gather bonds for the purpose of raising its business funds, not to make a deposit contract with the remaining plaintiffs. Thus, the above non-party 1's expression of intent to each of the above deposits is not of intention. Since the deposit transaction in this case was directly conducted with the above non-party 1 through the deposit broker, it was an abnormal payment of interest other than the interest specified in the above deposit contract with the above non-party 1. In light of the fact that the deposit transaction in this case was made directly with the above non-party 1, the above non-party 1's expression of intention was presumed to be invalid, and if the other plaintiffs paid a normal attention, the above non-party 1's expression of intent is not of intention. Accordingly, the remaining plaintiffs' primary claim is without merit, assuming that each of the above

(2) Determination on the conjunctive claim

(A) The remaining plaintiffs, preliminaryly, asserted that the above non-party 1 and 2 (the non-party 1 et al., who is an employee of the defendant's treasury (the non-party 1 et al.) suffered damages equivalent to the above deposit amount from the remaining plaintiffs due to the illegal act committed by the other plaintiffs in the course of performing the business affairs of each of the above deposits with the defendant's treasury. Thus, the defendant's treasury is responsible for compensating the damages as the employer. Thus, the above non-party 1 et al., who is an employee in charge of the deposit business of the defendant's treasury, received each of the above funds provided by the remaining plaintiffs as the bonds for the purpose of raising the business funds of the above non-party 1, and acquired them by pretending them as being received as deposits for the defendant's treasury. Thus, the above acts such as the above non-party 1 et al. were conducted in relation to the business affairs of the defendant's treasury, and thus, the other plaintiffs suffered damages equivalent to the above deposit amount.

(B) As to this, the defendant's safe asserted that the above act of the above non-party 1 et al. does not constitute the act of performing the affairs of the defendant's safe, because it knew or was not aware by gross negligence, the remaining plaintiffs cannot be liable for employer's liability against the defendant's safe. However, there is no evidence that the remaining plaintiffs knew that the above non-party 1 et al. received the above amount of money which the remaining plaintiffs provided as a deposit from the defendant's safe, not as a deposit against the defendant's safe, but as a bond for the creation of a bond to raise its own business funds. As the judgment of the main claim was acknowledged, the remaining plaintiffs heard that they can receive a separate interest from the above maximum amount of the defendant's safe, and they did not go through the general counter of the defendant's safe, and directly traded with the above non-party 1 et al. without going through the defendant's general counter and received the above interest rate of the deposit of this case from the deposit broker not the defendant's safe.

(C) Furthermore, in light of the overall circumstances such as the background leading to the deposit contract in this case, the contents of the deposit contract, and the receipt of unfair advance interest from the remaining plaintiffs, the amount of damages that Defendant Treasury is liable to compensate to the remaining plaintiffs shall be determined by reducing 40% of the amount of the remaining plaintiffs' deposits.

(D) Therefore, the defendant's safe has the obligation to pay to the remaining plaintiffs damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the date of the interest-generating on the same list as the next day of each interest payment to the date of the decision of December 21, 1995, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant's safe to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to pay for the above amounts, and 20% per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. Determination as to the claim against the defendant National Federation

(1) Judgment as to the main claim

As the rest of the plaintiffs are primary claims, the defendant cooperative shall make a resolution of dissolution at a general meeting of shareholders on July 26, 1994, and completed the registration of dissolution on August 2, 199, and since the non-party Song Jin-jin appointed as the liquidator of the defendant cooperative applied for the subrogation to the defendant federation after receiving the claim report from the depositor, the defendant federation is obligated to pay each of the above deposits, interest and delay damages to the remaining plaintiffs pursuant to Article 57 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act and Articles 19 and 20 of the Safety Fund Management Rules, and therefore the defendant federation may pay only the effective deposit to the defendant cooperative for the reasons as seen in subparagraph 2-B (1) of the above Article. Thus, the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant cooperative have no effect as the deposit contract of this case which was concluded between the other plaintiffs and the defendant without the intention of the deposit contract of this case, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant federation on the premise that each of the above deposit contract is valid should no longer be justified.

(2) Determination on the conjunctive claim

The remaining plaintiffs, preliminaryly, the defendant federation neglected the duty to direct and supervise the business of the defendant's safe, and caused damages to the rest of the plaintiffs due to negligence by neglecting the above non-party 1 and 2, who is an employee of the defendant's safe, as seen earlier, and therefore, the defendant federation is jointly and severally liable with the defendant's safe to compensate for the damages to the rest of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, according to Article 46 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, the purpose of the defendant federation is to direct and supervise the business of the credit cooperative and promote the promotion of its common interest and the sound development. According to Article 54 of the same Act, the defendant federation may recognize the fact that the business of the members is operated such as guidance, enlightenment, investigation, research, distribution and publicity, education and training of the members and employees of the credit cooperative, education and training of the members and employees of the credit cooperative, supervision and inspection of the credit cooperative, support for the business of the credit cooperative. However, in light of the purpose of the defendant federation for the purpose of promoting the promotion of common interest and the sound development of the credit cooperative, the duty of guidance and supervision borne by the defendant federation under each of the above provisions is an abstract and general duty, and therefore, the remaining plaintiffs cannot be held liable for tort against the defendant federation, not the members of the credit cooperative. Thus, the remaining plaintiffs' aforementioned preliminary assertion against the defendant federation

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the main claims of this case against the defendants of gambling, barracks, and leaps are accepted on the ground that they are well-grounded, and all of the remaining plaintiffs' main claims against the defendant's depository are dismissed on the ground that they are without merit, and the remainder of the conjunctive claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition and are dismissed on the ground that they are without merit. The main claims against the defendant federation and the conjunctive claims are all dismissed on the ground that they are without merit, and the payment of the costs of lawsuit is governed by Articles 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act, but the provisional execution is exempted on the ground that there is a considerable reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong-ju (Presiding Judge)