(영문) 서울고등법원 2016. 8. 12. 선고 2013나51119(본소), 2013나72017(반소) 판결

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd., which orders payment below is revoked.

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) No. 209,938,300 won, 39,410,800 won to the National Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. (Counterclaim Defendant), and 6% per annum from May 9, 2012 to August 12, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment;

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Nong Bank Co., Ltd. 36,397,800 won, 6,832,800 won to the plaintiff Co., Ltd. and 6,832,800 won per annum from May 9, 2012 to August 12, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The remainder of the appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the National Bank of Korea, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim additionally added in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total cost of the lawsuit, the part caused by the principal lawsuit is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively.

4. The monetary payment portion under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

5. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff Han Bank among the judgment of the court of first instance was modified as follows, by the lawsuit acceptance of the Plaintiff Han Bank, which is the lawsuit acceptance of the Plaintiff Bank.

The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay 363,034,100 won, the Defendant shall pay 62,940,600 won, and 66% per annum from May 9, 2012 to September 24, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Main elements;

A. The primary purport of the claim

1) The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant Camp”) shall pay 5,316,68,50 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Bank Co., Ltd.; 612,383,200 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant); 623,751,70 won to the Plaintiff Daegu Bank; 413,813,400 won to the Plaintiff Gwangju Bank; 363,034,100 won to the Plaintiff Han Bank; 209,938,300 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant); and 39,410,800 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant); and 60% of the annual amount from the day following May 9, 2012 to the day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case; 363,034,100 won to the Plaintiff Han Bank; 209,938,300 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant); and 6% of the annual amount from the day following the day of this case to the payment.

2) The Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Investment Securities”) paid 921,771,00 won to the Plaintiff Korea Bank, 106,171,200 won to the Plaintiff New Bank, 106,142,200 won to the Plaintiff Daegu Bank, 71,744,400 won to the Plaintiff Gwangju Bank, 62,940,600 won to the Plaintiff Han Bank, 36,397,800 won to the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank, and 6,832,800 won to the Plaintiff National Bank from May 9, 2012 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum to the Plaintiff New Bank from the next day to the date of full payment, the Defendant did not request the Defendants’ succession to the claim against the Plaintiff Intervenor of Gwangju Bank, and thus did not request the Defendants’ succession to the claim against the Defendants.

B. Preliminary purport of claim (the Plaintiff’s Bank, the New Bank, the Daegu Bank, the Intervenor’s successor to the Plaintiff Bank, the 2nd securitization specialized company, and the Plaintiff Han Bank added the conjunctive claim to the appellate court for the first time)

1) Defendant Camp Co., Ltd pays to Plaintiff us the amount of KRW 5,316,68,50, KRW 612,383,200, KRW 623,751,700 to Plaintiff Daegu Bank; KRW 413,813,400 to Plaintiff Gwangju Bank; KRW 363,034,100 to Plaintiff Han Bank; and each of the amounts calculated at the rate of KRW 6% per annum from May 9, 2012 to the date of delivery of the application for modification of claim and cause of claim in this case; and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

2) Defendant Korea Investment Securities shall pay to Plaintiff Korea Investment Bank KRW 921,771,00, KRW 106,171,200 to Plaintiff Daegu Bank, KRW 108,142,200 to Plaintiff Daegu Bank, KRW 71,744,400 to Plaintiff Gwangju Bank, KRW 62,940,60 to Plaintiff Han Bank, and each of them shall be 6% per annum from May 9, 2012 to the date of delivery of the application for change of claim and cause of claim, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Counterclaim;

Defendant Camp Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank, and the National Bank, jointly and severally, KRW 7,329,650,90, and the Plaintiff Bank, jointly and severally with the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank, shall pay the amount calculated by 2,262,331,500 out of the above amount, and each of them shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the copy of the counterclaim is served to the day of full payment.

【Purpose of Appeal】

1. Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff Nonghyup Bank shall be revoked. The part against the plaintiff Nonghyup Bank shall be 209,938,300 won, the defendant Campco shall be 36,397,800 won, and the defendant Korean Investment Securities shall be 6% per annum from May 9, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. The plaintiff National Bank;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff’s National Bank shall be revoked. The part against the Plaintiff’s National Bank shall be paid to the Plaintiff’s National Bank; Defendant Campco shall be 39,410,800 won; Defendant’s Korean Investment Securities shall be 6,832,800 won per annum from May 9, 2012 to the service date of a duplicate of the instant complaint; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Defendant Campco;

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant Camp was revoked, and the claim of Plaintiff us bank, New Bank, Daegu Bank, Gwangju Bank, and Han Bank as to the revoked part is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are banks authorized by the Banking Act; Defendant Campco is a special purpose company established under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act (hereinafter “Asset-Backed Securitization Act”); Defendant Korea Investment Securities is a financial investment business entity under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are all the creditor financial institutions of the Pung Forest Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Pung Forest Industry”).

B. On January 29, 2009, creditor financial institutions of the winding industry constituted a coordinating committee of creditor financial institutions. The creditor financial institutions of the winding industry established a coordinating committee of creditor financial institutions on January 29, 2009 and resolved to commence the joint management procedures for the winding industry (which was enacted by Act No. 8572 of Aug. 3, 2007 and amended by Act No. 9617 of Apr. 1, 2009) pursuant to Articles 8 and 7(1)1 of the former Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act (which was enacted by Act No. 9617 of Apr. 1, 2009).

C. On April 10, 2009, the Creditor Council of the Pream Industry passed a resolution on a proposal No. 4 (hereinafter “PF processing proposal of the third Council”) which is a content of the third Council of Creditor Council of Creditor Council of Creditor Council of Creditor Council of Creditor Council (hereinafter “third Council”). Among them, the details related to the instant case are as follows:

[Case of Disposition of Claim for Discharge of Guarantee Obligation (PF Business Place)]

1. Basic principles for processing a PF business place (under the responsibility of a PF dealing agency at each PF business place);

(1) Each PF workplace of the enterprise shall be conducted in accordance with the processing scheme presented by each PF Handling Agency on the basis of the external advisory data from the external advisory body, and after the date of the resolution of the agenda, the enterprise shall be limited to each PF workplace from its own funds to cover additional costs (such as construction amounts, outstanding amounts, and loans).

(2) The grace period for a right to claim performance of guaranteed liabilities: By December 31, 201

2. Criteria for disposal by business place of PF;

(a) Withholding places of business (sale, replacement of construction works, resumption of business, etc.): Nine places of business;

(1) In principle, deferment of repayment of principal, postponement of interest, or reduction or exemption shall be made until the disposition for a withheld place of business is completed or the grace period is deferred, except where an executor has the ability to pay principal and interest normally.

(5) With respect to a place of business which resumes after a grace period, all measures necessary for completion of the place of business, such as payment of normal construction expenses, (such as extension of the maturity of the PF, adjustment of repayment schedule, new support for construction expenses, etc., if necessary) shall be taken

(b) The normal progress place of business: Ten business places;

(1) All measures necessary for the completion of a place of business, such as payment of normal construction expenses, (such as extension of the period of PF0, adjustment of repayment schedule, and new support for construction expenses, if necessary) shall be carried out under the responsibility of a

(2) In order for the relevant enterprise to stably carry out construction works, construction costs shall be paid in the following month after checking the completed construction period of the preceding month.

(1) Any balance loan or loan secured by security that can promote sale in lots shall be repaid in a way that the amount of completion in lots can be recovered through the provision of outstanding loans or loan secured by security.

(2) With respect to unsold completion items, which are held by the relevant enterprise as a substitute for construction costs, the relevant enterprise shall ensure liquidity through the support for secured loans.

* SFEM : PF Handling Agency - Plaintiff Nonghyup

Measures to deal with the place of business - Suspension after withholding

The debt re-resolution plan - The extension of the existing PF maturity and the extension of repayment schedule shall be deferred until 50 percent of the sale rate;

Incheon Office: PF Handling Agency - Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank, Plaintiff National Bank

Measures to deal with workplaces - normal progress

Debt Re-Adjustment Plan - Extension of the existing PF00 term and reimbursement schedule adjustment

Amount to be borne by maximum construction cost – 34 billion won

Daejeon District Office: PF Handling Agency - Plaintiff Woori Bank et al. 14

The method of processing workplace - the normal progress

The debt restructuring plan - The extension of the existing PF0 maturity and the adjustment of repayment schedule;

- Amount of maximum construction cost to be borne - 1,055 billion won

[Case of Handling Bills of No. 6 and Other Matters]

10. Measures when the resolution is not implemented;

Until the relevant creditor financial institution implements a resolution, the principal creditor bank may take measures, such as reservation of interest payment, exclusion from the repayment of claims due to the distribution of surplus funds, etc. by a resolution of the creditor financial council, and may impose penalty or liability for damages separately.

D. On July 22, 201, at the fourth Council of Creditor Financial Institutions (hereinafter “The fourth Council”) held on July 2, 201, creditor financial institutions provided a new operation fund of KRW 110 billion to the PPY industry. With respect to the apportionment of the said funds, creditor financial institutions passed a resolution on a proposal No. 4 (hereinafter “the fourth Council’s new funding proposal”) and a proposal No. 5 (hereinafter “PF processing proposal”) regarding the settlement of the right to claim the performance of guaranteed obligations (hereinafter “the fourth Council’s new financing proposal”) with the content that creditor financial institutions conclude a loss apportionment undertaking among the creditor financial institutions in relation to the apportionment of the said funds (hereinafter “instant loss apportionment undertaking”). The details relevant to the instant case are as follows:

[Bill. 4]

1. Amount of new funds provided;

(a) Operating capital: 10 billion won;

2. Criteria for sharing expenses:

(1) As of January 21, 2009, the amount of shortage following the evaluation by an external specialized institution is to be supported by dividing the operating fund and the payment guarantee related to the construction based on the ratio of possession of the principal bond and the amount of the principal bond.

(2) The operating funds shall be borne and subsidized by the creditor financial institutions other than Seoul Guarantee Co., Ltd., which are the guarantee institution, according to the ratio of possession of the principal claim amount. The first financial institution additionally shares the amount of share of the second financial right according to the ratio of possession of the claim amount and the second financial institution provides support to the second financial institution.

3. Methods of support;

(1) Operating funds;

(1) Support amount: 10 billion won.

(2) Support subjects: A loan of general funds for enterprises.

(3) Subsidy rate: 6.0% per annum after the end of each month.

(4) The period of assistance shall be one year, and shall be automatically extended by the time the principal creditor bank notifies.

(5) The timing of assistance: The limit shall be entered into immediately after the principal creditor bank notifies the execution thereof after the relevant agenda item is approved, and the principal creditor bank notifies the amount of assistance within the limit, considering the financial status of the relevant enterprise

* Guarantee of Loss Sharing

○ The second financial institutions of the second financial institutions undertake to share losses on the basis of the allocation ratio within the scope of the first allocation amount of new funds with respect to the amount of new funds subsidized by the financial institutions of the first financial institutions in addition to the ratio of possession of the amount of the new funds.

○ The loss apportionment ratio by financial institution of second financial right (unit: KRW 00,000)

Total amount distributed by the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation of Korea Investment Securities Export-Import Bank of Korea included in the main sentence 75.79 32.59 31.33 152.85% 1.9% 3.0% 2.8% 13.9% 13.9%

○ If the workout program of this case is suspended due to any cause, such as the occurrence of insolvency, the conversion into bankruptcy proceedings, or bankruptcy proceedings, etc., because the management normalization work by joint management by creditor financial institutions of the Pung Forest Industry in the future has not run smoothly, the amount of losses (based on the principal) incurred in relation to the support of new funds (based on the amount of damages) as of the day preceding the date of suspension shall be deemed to be “amount of damages subject to

After the conclusion of a special agreement (MU) with regard to the implementation of the management normalization plan of the Pung forest industry, the "loss Allocation commitment" of the Asset Management Corporation, which is a bondholder as of the date of resolution through the acquisition of claims from NFF, shall be dealt with by the agreement between the Parties.

The principal creditor bank shall carry out the affairs related to the payment and settlement of the amount of loss contributions, and the principal creditor bank shall notify each financial institution of the apportionment amount and settlement base date calculated based on the ratio of loss apportionment to each financial institution, and each financial institution shall deposit the amount of apportionment to the principal creditor bank designated account through the execution of provisional payment and pay it to the first creditor bank as the amount of contribution.

5. Effectiveness of the agenda of this Part.

The resolution shall take effect only when the proposal of subparagraph 3 (Re-Adjustment of Financial Conditions of Existing Claims) and subparagraph 5 (Disposition of Claim for Performance of Guarantee Obligations) have been adopted.

[Bill. 5]

1. Handling of the pF place of business;

(1) Basic principles: proceeds under the responsibility of the PF Handling Agency for each business establishment;

(2) Restrictions on the additional financing burden (such as amounts receivable, loans, etc.) for each PF business establishment, determine the processing scheme for each PF business establishment in consultation with the implementation company and the contractor, and prepare a plan for re-resolution and normalization of the financial conditions of the PF credit in accordance with the determined processing scheme.

(3) The grace period for a right to claim performance of guaranteed liabilities: By December 31, 2013

(8) Measures for disposal by each PF workplace and re-resolution of the financial conditions of the PF credit shall be conducted in accordance with the conditions set out in [Attachment 2], and shall be conducted in accordance with detailed processing criteria (2) below.

2. Detailed standards for processing by business place of PF;

(1) The normal progress workplace

(1) All measures necessary for the completion of the workplace, such as the payment of normal construction expenses, (such as extension of the period of PF0, adjustment of repayment schedule, and new support for construction expenses, if necessary) shall progress under the responsibility of the PE

(3) A place of business completed after normal progress shall be dealt with according to the standards for disposal of the next place of business.

(4) Re-resolution, etc. of financial conditions of the PF credit.

- Handling principal: Deferment of repayment until the grace period;

-the settlement of interest

· A normal amount shall be paid by applying 4% per annum, but where surplus funds are incurred after the completion of the project, interest at the rate of reduction or exemption (applicable interest) may be collected.

- Subsidization of new funds (construction cost loan)

· Subsidizing loans for construction costs within the scope of the expected maximum construction cost for the completion of a normal workplace.

· Interest rate shall apply 6% per annum and shall be paid normally.

- Interest on the PF credit in the workplace at the workplace as a substitute for new funds (construction cost loan) shall be reduced below the above applicable interest rate.

(1) In consideration of the occupancy status of a seller in lots and the security value of housing unsold in lots, the accounts receivable for construction shall be paid preferentially until a stable redemption is possible.

(2) Unsold housing units shall be able to be repaid in advance and the amount of construction deposits collected through the provision of secured loans.

(3) For houses unsold in lots which the relevant enterprise holds as a substitute for the payment of construction costs, the relevant enterprise shall ensure liquidity through a loan support.

*The plan for debt readjustment for the Daejeon Trane workplaces and the Incheon Cheongra workplaces

- Deferment of repayment of principal: Extension of the PF maturity, adjustment of repayment schedule, deferment of repayment until the grace period;

- Application of interest rate: A reasonable receiving, and replacement of construction cost loans with the rate of 1% per annum for Daejeon Dai-dong workplaces, applying 4% per annum;

- New funds (loan, etc. of construction costs): The maximum shortage expected by place of business

Daejeon District Court-36.5 billion won (15.8 billion won for the plaintiff bank)

Incheon Cheongra-36 billion won

[Case of Handling Bill 6 and Other Matters]

1. Management of claims by opposing creditors;

5. Measures when the resolution is not implemented;

Where a creditor financial institution fails to implement a resolution by the creditor financial institutions council, the principal creditor bank may, pursuant to Article 21 of the Promotion Act, take measures, such as reservation of interest payment, exclusion from the repayment of claims due to surplus funds distribution, etc., through a resolution of the creditor financial institutions council, until the relevant creditor financial institution fails to perform such matters, and may impose penalty

E. Although Defendant Campco consented to the proposed 4th Council’s new financial assistance, Defendant Camp did not exercise the right to claim a right to claim a claim against the opposing creditor under Article 20 of the former Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 10684, May 19, 2011; amended by Act No. 10866, July 21, 201; Article 4 of the Addenda of the same Act as of May 19, 201; hereinafter referred to as the “Promotion Act”) and the Defendant Korea Investment Securities did not exercise the right to claim a claim against the opposing creditor under Article 20.

F. From July 201 to February 2012, the Plaintiffs completed a new loan to the scenic industry in accordance with the 4th Council’s new financial assistance plan.

G. On April 23, 2012, the fifth coordinating council of creditor financial institutions held on April 23, 2012 (hereinafter “the fifth coordinating council”) passed a resolution on the following agenda (hereinafter “the fifth coordinating council of creditor financial institutions”) on the ground that “The current status of liquidity in the winding industry occurs due to the failure of the resolution of the coordinating committee of creditor financial institutions at the time, and thus, the failure to implement the resolution of the coordinating committee of creditor financial institutions to resolve the liquidity shortage through the normal implementation of the workout program.” However, the Plaintiff, the Nonghyup Bank, and the national bank did not provide financial support following the fifth coordinating committee of creditor financial institutions.

[Case of Payment of the Outstanding Amount of Construction Works at PF Business Place under the Bill No. 1]

According to the 3rd and fourth Council's PF processing proposal, in the case of a PF shop under the responsibility of each PF handling agency for each PF shop, all measures necessary for completion (such as extension of the PF maturity, adjustment of repayment schedule, and new support for construction costs, etc., if necessary) are conducted by the relevant PF Handling agency, and the construction cost is to be paid in the following month as to the completion of the preceding month. For PF shop, financial institutions of the PF industry's major bonds have supported new funds (170 billion won) twice on the premise of all measures necessary for completion in the case of a normal progress PF shop. As of the date of this draft agenda, some PF handling agencies have deepened the liquidity shortage of the relevant company due to the increase in construction amounts and redemption of PF loans, compared to the start-up of the work site.As of the date of this draft agenda, the liquidity shortage of the relevant company as of the date of the date of the implementation of the resolution by the Council of Creditor Council of some PF Handling agencies is due to the failure of the resolution by the Council.

1. Amount paid: 80.7 billion won;

(a) PF agency: A national bank of KRW 26.9 billion, agricultural cooperative of KRW 53.8 billion;

3. Methods of support;

(1) Items of support: Enterprise general loan (for separate loan).

· If there is funds in the account of proceeds from sale in the relevant workplace as of the date of resolution, it shall be able to support with the amount of construction accounts.

(2) Subsidy rate: 6.0% (high interest rate) per annum after each month.

(4) Time of assistance: Action immediately upon notice of action by the principal creditor bank after the resolution of the agenda;

(5) Other matters: The Aid Fund will be repaid as surplus construction cost of the workplace in question.

4. Other matters.

(2) The agenda item is a case of the implementation of the portion of a breach of the resolutions adopted by the coordinating committee of creditor financial institutions to take all measures necessary for the completion of the normal process at a PF shop. This is not a case of the commencement of the joint management procedures of creditor financial institutions falling under Article 20 (Right to Claim Purchase of Claim by Dissenting Creditor) Section 20 (Right to Claim Purchase of Claim by Dissenting Creditor) Section 1 of the Promotion Act, the adjustment of claims, or new

H. On May 2, 2012, Pung Forest Industry was settled in the last default on the payment of losses. On May 4, 2012, Plaintiff Woori Bank demanded the Defendants and the Export-Import Bank of Korea to pay losses according to the instant loss apportionment undertaking, except trade insurance corporation exercising the right to purchase claims as opposing creditors among the creditor financial institutions of the second financial right under the instant loss apportionment undertaking.

I. On May 10, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures as the Act No. 2012 combined72 on May 10, 2012, and approved the rehabilitation plan for the scenic industry on September 25, 2012, and decided to terminate rehabilitation procedures on April 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4, 5, 8, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The occurrence and scope of a claim for the apportionment of loss (the plaintiff's bank, the new bank, the Daegu bank, the Gwangju Bank, the Han Bank's primary claims, and the plaintiff's Nonghyup Bank, and the national bank's claims);

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

The financial institutions, including the plaintiffs, are provided with new operating funds of KRW 10 billion to the Pung Forest Industry; however, if the procedures for the workout program are suspended due to the reasons such as failure to pay the 110 billion operating funds, etc., the creditor financial institutions, including the plaintiffs, bear the share of the creditor financial institutions, which are the second financial institutions, in proportion to their share of the loans, including the defendants, the amount equivalent to their own share of the 110 billion operating funds (the amount of KRW 7,579,000,000, Defendant Korean Investment Securities 1,284,780,000,000) out of the new operating funds, and the amount equivalent to their share of the 110 billion operating funds was clearly paid in installments to the creditor financial institutions of the 10th financial institutions of the 20th financial institutions; the Defendants did not exercise their claim as the opposing creditor; the Defendants did not exercise their claim ratio on July 22, 2011 7% of the amount of the new financial institutions's share.

Therefore, notwithstanding the Defendants’ objection, the 40th 0th 6th 6th x 01th 07th 07th x 07th 07th x 106th 06th x 30 per annum for the Plaintiff Bank, 40th x 70th 06th x 30 per annum for the Plaintiff Bank, 40th x 10th 06th x 70 per annum for the Plaintiff Bank, 40th x 06th 7th 06th x 70 per annum for the Plaintiff Bank, 40th x 06th 06th x 07th 7th 06th x 706th 70 x 9th 707 x 705th 708 x 708th 5th x 708th m208) of the Plaintiff Bank.

B. Determination of the defendants' assertion

1) As to the assertion that Defendant Camp was not a party to the instant loss apportionment undertaking

A) The assertion

The parties to the instant loss apportionment undertaking are Korea Asset Management Corporation which is not Defendant Campco.

B) Determination

According to Gap evidence 2-1, the fact that "asset management corporation" is indicated as a party, not the defendant's campingco, is recognized in the letter of promise of loss apportionment of this case.

However, if Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 4, 5, 6, 14, 16, Eul evidence 1, and Eul's evidence 1 added the purport of the whole pleadings, ① The National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives, which continued the workout proceeding for the Pung industry, transfers the bonds equivalent to about 30 billion won for the Pung industry to the defendant Campco on December 29, 2009, which was a creditor financial institution of Pungco, ② Pungco submitted a letter of undertaking to the Council of Creditor Council on December 2009 pursuant to Article 19 (4) of the former Promotion Act and promised to comply with the matters to be resolved and to be resolved in the future, ③ The Korea Asset Management Corporation, the caretaker of the defendant camping lawfully exercised its voting rights at the Council on the agenda of this case, ④ The parties to this case's resolution at the Council on the resolution of this case's resolution of the Council on December 25, 201.

2) As to the assertion that the instant obligation to bear loss goes beyond Defendant Camp’s legal capacity and is null and void.

A) The assertion

Pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act (hereinafter “Asset-Backed Securitization Act”), a special purpose company may not engage in any business other than those prescribed in Article 22(1) of the same Act pursuant to Article 20(1) of the same Act. However, this case’s loss sharing undertaking is ① a new obligation to provide new funds, separate from the securitization assets, and thus, it does not constitute “management, operation, and disposal of asset-backed assets” as it is difficult to view it as falling under “management, operation, and disposal of asset-backed assets” and ② It does not constitute “a contract necessary for the implementation of an asset-backed securitization plan” in that it does not relate to the asset-backed securitization itself that issues asset-backed securities. ③ The method of operating surplus funds of a special purpose company is limited to investing in certain deposits, installment savings, corporate bonds, etc., and thus, it does not fall under “investment of surplus funds pursuant to an asset-backed securitization plan” and ④ adjustment of claims contained in the “collection and management of asset-backed assets” under the Asset-backed Securitization Act, and thus, it does not constitute a sound development of the Asset-backed Act.

B) Determination

Article 20(1) of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act provides that “A special purpose company shall not engage in any business other than those pursuant to Article 22,” and Article 22(1) provides that a business of a special purpose company shall be acquired by transfer or transfer of securitization assets, or entrusted to another trust company; 1. Management, operation and disposal of securitization assets; 3. Issuance and redemption of asset-backed securities; 4. Temporary borrowing of funds necessary for the redemption of asset-backed securities; 6. 7. Other business incidental to the business of subparagraphs 1 through 6.

However, taking into account the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence No. 4, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 4-2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the instant obligation of loss apportionment belongs to legitimate conclusion of a contract accompanied by the execution of an asset-backed securitization plan by Defendant Campco as part of the management of the claim for new credit extension which was adopted by creditor financial institutions pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Promotion Act as part of the management of the claims for securitization under Article 22(1)2 and No. 4 of the Asset Securitization Act, as the workout’s undertaking of the instant workout program for the scenic industry under the Promotion Act was initiated. This part of the Defendant Campco’s assertion is without merit.

(1) According to the registration application of an asset-backed securitization plan prepared and publicly announced by Defendant Campco, since the main part of the securitization assets owned by Defendant Campco is part of its own purpose of business, and Defendant Campco plans to conclude contracts necessary for the implementation of an asset-backed securitization plan as part of its own purpose, and in the management, operation, and disposal of securitized assets, Defendant Campco is naturally expected to exercise all rights as creditors necessary for the recovery and management of securitization assets, such as reporting of claims, attending the meeting of creditors, and exercising voting rights, if the procedure under the Promotion Act commences, and exercise all rights as creditors necessary for the recovery and management of the securitization assets. Thus, it is natural to view that the implementation of the resolution belongs to the asset-backed securitization management business of Defendant Campco.

(2) Considering the fact that the management of the workout program aims to prevent the insolvency of a company and to increase the recovery rate of the securitization assets by providing an opportunity for self-regulatory rehabilitation, it is interpreted that the new financing in the workout program is to maintain cash flow of the claims belonging to the securitization assets by promoting the normalization of the business of the company, and is included in the scope of the management and operation of the securitization assets.

(3) Campco also aims to conclude a contract necessary for the implementation of an asset-backed securitization plan. As such, it is also deemed that campingco is within the scope of the purpose of campingco’s business in the event it satisfies certain conditions, such as the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the scenic industry, in order for it to repay the principal and interest to the purchaser of asset-backed securities through the normalization of the scenic industry through private restructuring procedures and the recovery of securitized assets.

(4) According to the campco’s securitization plan, Article 5(8) of the Asset Management Entrustment Contract provides that in the event a procedure under the Promotion Act or any other similar procedure is initiated against a debtor of securitization assets, campco shall exercise all rights as a creditor necessary for the recovery and management of securitization assets in the said procedure through prior consultation with the business trustee. It is unreasonable to view that Defendant cubco, who takes profits from the securitization of claims against the scenic industry of the Fisheries Cooperatives, only exercises its rights as a creditor financial institution solely on the ground that it is a special purpose company, is a creditor financial institution.

(5) Defendant Campco also submitted a letter of commitment to comply with the resolution on the premise that it has the legal capacity to comply with the restriction of the resolution.

(6) According to the instant loss apportionment agreement, Defendant Campco’s obligation to share losses to the Plaintiffs is merely a part of the claims preservation measures to ensure the stable recovery of Defendant Campco’s claims, and Defendant Camp did not directly assume the obligation to provide credit to the scenic industry, such as new funds, etc.

(7) Although Defendant Campco did not file a separate application for new funds, only enjoy the interest of preventing non-performing loans and expectation of recovery of claims, and without imposing the risk of losses arising from the new funds support to other creditors and institutions are not in line with the purpose of its operation, which is to promote the recovery of claims through the apportionment of losses and risks.

(8) The details, business purposes, etc. of the securitization assets owned by Defendant Campco are all published through the registration application, etc. of the asset-backed securitization plan of Defendant Campco, and it can be anticipated that the investors of Defendant Campco may also assume certain obligations under the Promotion Act accompanying the management of securitization assets; furthermore, it may be anticipated that the repayment of all or part of the principal and interest of the securitization bonds may not be made in the event of the obligor’s failure in the workout program or the obligor’s readjustment of claims, new financing, etc.

3) As to the Defendant Campco’s assertion that the instant loss apportionment undertaking does not constitute a new credit extension under the Promotion Act

A) The assertion

New credit extension which may be decided by the Council of Creditor Council pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Promotion Act is limited to that stipulated in the attached Table of Article 3(2) of the "Regulations on Supervision of Financial Institutions for the Promotion of Corporate Restructuring". This case's loss apportionment guarantee is not prescribed in the attached Table, and it goes beyond the scope of new credit extension which may be decided by the Council of Creditor Council. Thus, it is not effective to Defendant

B) Determination

Article 3(1) and attached Table 3(2) of the Regulations on Supervision of Financial Institutions for the Promotion of Corporate Restructuring (Notice No. 2011-17 of the Financial Services Commission enacted and enforced on September 8, 201) stipulate the scope of credit extension listed in Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Promotion Act. Article 3(1) of the said Regulations comprehensively regulates “credit extension” under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Promotion Act as all claims that can be claimed for reimbursement against the pertinent company, such as loan claims, payment guarantee, securities, and other claims. However, if the pertinent company’s principal creditor bank does not exist, it is difficult to select a bank with the largest amount of credit extension from creditor financial institutions as the principal creditor bank, and as a matter of principle, it is difficult to determine the scope of credit extension amount under Article 2 subparag. 3 and 4 of the Promotion Act as an object of the Promotion Act, and thus, it is not reasonable to exclude the aforementioned type of credit extension amount from the account’s balance sheet to be determined or excluded from the account’s balance sheet.

4) As to the Defendant Campco’s assertion that it is impossible to bear new liability for the instant loss apportionment pursuant to the Asset Securitization Act.

A) The assertion

Defendant Campco is a special purpose corporation established to conduct asset-backed securitization business in accordance with the Asset-Backed Securitization Act. ① Asset-backed securities under the Asset-backed Securitization Act regulate the issuance of asset-backed securities within the limit of the purchase price of securitized assets or the total evaluation price of the asset-backed assets, and can only issue additional asset-backed securities to raise funds in the event of a temporary shortage of funds. Defendant Camp is unable to issue additional asset-backed securities up to the purchase price limit of the asset-backed assets already transferred. Temporary loans under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act are allowed only to the case of funds necessary for redemption of asset-backed assets. In the end, it is impossible to use new funds to Defendant Camp for the disbursement of asset-backed assets. ② The funds manager with the Korea Asset Management Corporation, who is a fund manager, can execute funds-backed securities only in the order of priority, such as taxes, expenses for the establishment of the truster, fees, and principal and interest of the bonds. In light of the fact that it is not anticipated that camping will additionally disburse funds or perform additional guarantees or legal acts with respect to some claims.

B) Determination

Since the plaintiffs and investors in asset-backed securities are creditors of the same rank against defendant Campco, defendant Campco may pay the amount recovered from securitized assets in proportion to the amount of claims to the creditors and the plaintiffs related to asset-backed securitization, and there is no ground to deem that the debt burden is impossible due to the lack of sufficient repayment ability. Thus, the above argument by defendant Campco is without merit.

5) As to the Defendant Campco’s assertion that the invalidation of Article 10, Article 18(1), and Article 18(2) of the Promotion Act is unconstitutional

A) The assertion

Articles 10, 18(1), and 18(2) of the Promotion Act stipulate that if a creditor financial institution’s creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ creditor financial institutions’ mutual consent to the resolution, the creditor financial institutions’ mutual consent to the resolution, unless the creditor financial institutions’ mutual consent to the right to claim a new credit is exercised. The above legal provision infringes on the property rights guaranteed by Article 23 of the Constitution (in particular, disposal of securitization assets through the exercise of the right to claim a credit under the Promotion Act is impossible as it is against the securitization plan, and the exercise of the right to claim a credit is a kind of disposal of securitization assets, it is practically difficult to exercise the right to claim a credit within seven days from the date of such procedures to obtain a prior consultation and consent with the business trustee, and thus, it is more true that Article 10(1) of the Promotion Act does not have any means of objection to the resolution, and it unilaterally infringes the rights of a domestic financial institution.

B) Determination

(1) The purpose of the Promotion Act is to promote a regular corporate restructuring under market function by prescribing matters necessary for promoting a prompt and smooth corporate restructuring (Article 1). In order to achieve the above purpose, the Act commences the procedures for joint management of creditor financial institutions with respect to an enterprise showing signs of insolvency. The Act provides that a creditor financial institution may adjust claims or grant new credit to an enterprise showing signs of insolvency by resolution of the council composed of creditor financial institutions (Article 5 and 10). According to the Promotion Act, the creditor financial institutions council shall make a resolution with the consent of the creditor financial institutions holding not less than 3/4 of the amount of credit extended by creditor financial institutions, and the method of resolution may be determined differently by determining the specific scope of the case (Article 18(1)).

A creditor financial institution shall faithfully implement the matters resolved by a majority as above (Article 18(2)); a creditor financial institution which has not attended a resolution of such a council or has attended it and expressed its dissenting opinion in writing within seven days from the date of the relevant resolution; and the creditor financial institution which has consented to the resolution shall jointly and severally purchase the relevant claim to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, etc. within six months from the date of the said request; however, the creditor financial institution which has consented to the resolution shall be able to purchase the relevant claim by agreement with the opposing creditors (Article 20(1) and (2). The purchase price and conditions of the claim shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties; if the agreement is not reached, the supporting creditor or opposing creditor may apply for the adjustment of the purchase price and conditions of the creditor financial institution; and the Mediation Committee shall determine it at a fair price in consideration of the results of calculation of accounting experts appointed by mutual agreement between the parties (Article 20(3) and (4)).

(2) According to the Promotion Act, a creditor financial institution is deemed to have consented to the resolution of the Council even if it objects to the resolution unless it exercises the right to demand a purchase (Article 20(1)), and the exercise of property rights by opposing creditors is restricted, but as seen earlier, the Promotion Act has the legitimate purpose of facilitating regular corporate restructuring by market functions. The creditor financial institutions are able to use new credit which is not well achieved in other procedures, such as the court’s rehabilitation procedure, etc., due to the failure to increase the final rate of recovery of claims against the company and share temporary sacrifice, and thereby contribute to the normalization of business by securing the liquidity of the company, as a matter of principle, 3/4 of the credit extension amount as a quorum. In particular, the opposing creditors are required to purchase the corresponding claim within 6 months by the method of granting the right to demand a purchase, and in particular, the purchase price and conditions of the claim between opposing creditors are to be determined by the Coordination Committee to the extent that it does not unfairly deprive the opposing creditors of the purchase price and the appraisal right of the creditor financial institution or the opposing creditors of Article 27.

Therefore, Article 10, Article 18 (1) and Article 18 (2) of the Promotion Act are laws that infringe on the essential contents of the right of property of opposing creditors guaranteed by the Constitution.

Defendant Camp alleged, in particular, that the property right guaranteed by the Constitution is infringed on a special purpose company that allows the special purpose company to newly extend credit against Article 22 of the Asset-backed Securitization Act, which strictly limits the scope of the capacity of rights of the special purpose company under Article 10(1) of the Promotion Act and makes it impossible to bear any obligation in excess thereof. However, even in the case of a special purpose company, it is not prohibited from imposing any obligation required under the asset-backed securitization plan, but it is unreasonable to allow new credit extension under the Promotion Act in the case where the securitization assets themselves are the bonds of the special purpose company or asset-backed securities. As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the aforementioned legal

(3) Meanwhile, the Promotion Act grants creditor financial institutions opposing the resolution the right to demand a purchase of a claim, allowing them to set the purchase price and conditions by adjustment, and granting creditor financial institutions dissatisfied with the result of mediation the right to request a modified determination to the court (Article 24). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that creditor’s right to demand a trial under the Constitution has been infringed on, on the ground that creditor financial institutions dissatisfied with the resolution itself did not provide a means

In addition, as long as the Promotion Act opens a way to sell a claim to the opposing creditor, it cannot be said that the right of freedom of action under the Constitution of the opposing creditor is infringed, as provided in Articles 10 and 18 (1) and (2) of the Promotion Act.

(4) If the Constitution does not require equality, or if it does not cause a serious restriction on the relevant fundamental rights due to discriminatory treatment, it shall be determined whether the principle of equality is violated in accordance with the mitigated standard of review (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2001Hun-Ma132, Jun. 28, 2001). Unlike foreign financial institutions or general commercial creditors, a domestic financial institution, which is not subject to the Promotion Act, has discriminatory treatment in that it bears obligations under the above law. However, as seen earlier, the Promotion Act was enacted in accordance with the need for regular and prompt corporate restructuring by market function, and even under the above law, it is difficult to view that domestic financial institutions are obviously unreasonable or arbitrary in light of the fact that the legislative intent of enacting the Promotion Act, which was enacted for domestic financial institutions, is not likely to infringe on the right to claim purchase by opposing creditors, the right to request purchase by opposing creditors, and the right to request modification of the court, etc.

(5) Therefore, Defendant Campco’s assertion on this part is without merit.

6) As to the Defendants’ assertion that the instant loss apportionment undertaking did not take effect due to the failure to satisfy the requisite conditions

A) The assertion

The Defendants’ conclusion of the instant promise of loss apportionment is due to the fact that the PF Handling Institutions caused the premise that they should implement necessary measures for the completion of the business establishment, such as delay of repayment of principal and new construction costs, in relation to the PF business establishment. As such, the Defendants’ obligation to pay loss apportionments arises only when the PF Handling Institutions breached their responsibilities, such as failure to pay winding industry, even if the PF Handling Institutions are responsible.

However, at the 3th and 4th Council, the Council decided to take necessary measures for the completion of the business site, such as new funds, under the responsibility of each PF dealing agency in relation to the handling of winding industry's Incheon Cheongra, Sil Jin PF business site. On April 23, 2012, the 5th Council held on April 23, 2012 decided to provide support of KRW 53.8 billion and the National Bank of Korea decided to provide support of KRW 26.9 billion, the Plaintiff Nonghyup, the National Bank of Korea, and the National Bank of Korea did not implement the above resolution, and eventually, the liquidity shortage of the winding industry becomes worse due to the violation of the above obligations.

As such, the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank did not comply with the premise of the instant loss apportionment undertaking, there is no obligation of the Defendants to pay the Defendants’ loss apportionment.

B) Determination

The 4th Council may recognize the fact that, in full view of the statements and the overall purport of the arguments, the 4th Council's new financial assistance plan including the obligation to lend new construction expenses by the PF dealing agencies, such as the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank, the National Bank, etc., has been resolved to take effect only when the PF treatment plan including the obligation to lend new construction expenses, etc., of the existing bonds, was adopted. In full view of the 4th Council's statement and the whole purport of the arguments, the Plaintiff bank also presented the 5th Council agenda that the creditor financial institutions provided new financial assistance on the premise of all measures necessary for the completion of the PF business establishment (the extension of the PF maturity, repayment schedule adjustment, construction expenses loan, etc.)

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in Gap evidence 2-1, Eul, and 3 as well as the overall purport of arguments, i.e., ① even according to the text of the 4th Council's new financial assistance agreement including the loss apportionment undertaking, it is difficult to interpret that the 4th Council's "provisional decision" within the 4th Council's new financial assistance agreement only includes the loss apportionment undertaking, and it is difficult to interpret that the 4th Council's failure to implement the 4th Council's new financial assistance agreement as an effective requirement even if the 4th Council's "performance" becomes effective. ② If the 4th Council's "Performance" within the 4th Council's PF processing plan is established until the PF handling institution completes its implementation, the plaintiffs are also obligated to pay new financial assistance after the 4th Council's promise to pay the Defendants' new financial assistance on the ground that the 4th Council's new financial assistance agreement was not implemented. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the Defendants' new financial assistance agreement was not consistent with the Defendants's intent and losses.

7) As to Defendant Campco’s assertion that the subsequent agreement on the apportionment of losses was reached

A) The assertion

As Defendant Campco asserts that it is impossible for the principal creditor bank of Pungco to share losses prior to this case’s undertaking of loss apportionment, the Plaintiff Bank, the principal creditor bank of Pung Forest industry, should implement new funds as soon as possible due to current liquidity situation of Pungco’s current Pung Forest industry. Accordingly, the discussion on Defendant Campco’s undertaking of loss apportionment was again decided at the time of actual loss occurrence. Accordingly, “the disposal of loss apportionment by mutual agreement between both parties with respect to the obligation of loss apportionment of asset management corporation” under the instant undertaking of loss apportionment. However, since there was no separate agreement between Defendant Campco and the creditor financial institution or the Plaintiff Bank, the principal creditor bank, after the instant undertaking of loss apportionment, there was no separate agreement on the loss apportionment between the Defendant Campco and the Plaintiff Bank

B) Determination

According to Gap evidence No. 2-1, it is recognized that after the conclusion of a special agreement (MOU) to implement a plan to normalize the management of the scenic industry, NFC stated that "the portion of loss apportionment" of the Asset Management Corporation, which is a bondholder as of the date of resolution by NFFF, shall be dealt with by the agreement between the Parties."

Defendant Camp Co., Ltd claims that the aforementioned “Party” is the Plaintiff Bank and Defendant Campco, which is the principal creditor bank of the creditor financial council of creditor financial institutions or the public forestry industry. However, in front of the phrase “holder of claims as of the date of resolution through acquisition of claims from NFFC after the conclusion of a special agreement to implement the plan for normalization of the public forestry industry,” it may be interpreted that the said “Party” can be seen as NFC and the asset management corporation (Defendant Campco). In this case’s loss apportionment agreement, if the instant loss apportionment agreement already specifies the amount of allocation and the loss apportionment ratio of Defendant Campco, and the instant work execution procedure is discontinued, the new principal amount as of the day immediately before the date of suspension shall be determined as the amount of the principal subject to the principal creditor bank’s notification, and it is difficult to conclude that the said “Party” is the Plaintiff Bank and Defendant Campco, which is the principal creditor bank of creditor financial institutions or the public forestry industry, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement was later reached on the part of Defendant Camp’s losses.

8) As to the Defendant Campco’s assertion that the performance of the loss apportionment undertaking cannot be directly avoided

A) The assertion

The Promotion Act only stipulates that the matters to be resolved by the Council shall be faithfully implemented, but it does not impose an obligation to implement the matters to be resolved by the Council. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot seek implementation of the matters to be resolved by the lawsuit in this case against the defendant cam who fails to implement the matters to be resolved by the Council.

B) Determination

Where financial institutions enter into an agreement on the operation of the creditor banks' council for corporate restructuring, etc. and, under the agreement, the principal creditor bank, in order to commence the joint management procedures for the creditor banks, shall convene a meeting of the autonomous creditor banks' council composed of the creditor banks of the relevant company and pass a resolution on the readjustment of claims, such as the reduction of or exemption from interest, etc. with the consent of the creditor banks holding at least 3/4 of the amount of claims in order to normalize the management of the relevant company, and the creditor banks opposing such a resolution shall recognize the right to claim, but if there is a provision to consider that the said resolution would have consented to the relevant resolution, the effect of changing rights, such as the readjustment of claims, etc. under the above resolution, and creation of obligations, such as the apportionment of losses between the creditor banks, etc., is based on the aforesaid prior agreement and the resolution of the autonomous

As seen earlier, the instant promise of loss apportionment is a specific occurrence cause, the amount of loss apportionment, the date of settlement, the rate of allocation, and the method of performing the obligation to pay loss apportionment as well as the obligation to pay loss apportionment, which is already specified as the suspension of the workout procedure of this case, such as the failure to pay the wind industry, and the rehabilitation. Thus, even if Defendant Camp exercised a voting right opposing the proposed fourth council’s new financial assistance including the instant promise of loss apportionment, but did not exercise the right to claim the claim within seven days thereafter, it shall be deemed that it agreed to the resolution of the fourth council’s new financial assistance plan pursuant to Article 24(1)2 of the Promotion Act, and its resolution becomes effective against Defendant Camp. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may claim against Defendant Camp for the performance of the obligation under the instant promise of loss apportionment. Accordingly, Defendant Camp’s assertion cannot be accepted.

9) As to Defendant Campco’s assertion that the scope of the obligation to share loss should be limited

A) The assertion

Even if Defendant Campco is recognized as the obligation to share losses due to the instant loss apportionment undertaking, the portion used at an individual PF workplace out of the new credit extension amount cannot be deemed as the subject of loss apportionment, and thus, the amount of loss apportionment shall be calculated excluding the equivalent amount. ② The scope of the obligation to share loss should be limited to the amount of existing bonds owned by Campco, and ③ the specific payment method should be limited to the transfer of non-performing loans for the wind forest industry currently owned by Defendant Campco to the Plaintiffs according to the loss apportionment ratio.

B) Determination

According to the statements in Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 3, support funds decided within the 4th Council's new financial assistance are recognized as the facts constituting "operating funds" 110 billion won.

① It does not limit the use of new credit extension amount within the 4th council’s new financial assistance; ② Operational funds generally mean all the interest on loans to banks, including payment of bills against subcontractors, the payment of principal of corporate bonds, on-site funds (on-site wages, unpaid amounts, etc.), development interest, and other project expenses, provisional seizure interest, and rents, etc. ③ Pelim industry operating funds are provided in order to prevent the failure of payment or the suspension of business due to the failure of payment due to the lack of funds for Pelim industry, or the failure of payment due to the lack of project expenses, etc. from the beginning to the beginning. It is naturally anticipated that the majority of bills issued by Pelim industry is a bill issued by the Pelim industry, and the use of funds for the payment of bills whose maturity falls due to the maturity of Pelim industry is to be paid to the subcontractor, and there is no reason to exclude the portion out of the amount of new credit extension from the scope of losses from the scope of new credit extension contribution.

In addition, as long as the amount to be apportioned, method of payment, etc. are already specified in the loss apportionment agreement of this case, the scope of the obligation to bear loss should be limited to the amount of the existing claim owned by Defendant Campco, or Defendant Campco’s assertion that the payment method should be limited to the transfer of non-performing loans to the wind forest industry currently owned by Defendant Campco is without merit.

10) As to the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs should deduct the amount already paid or to be paid in accordance with the rehabilitation plan for the scenic industry

A) The assertion

According to the rehabilitation plan for the Pung Forest Industry, 24% of the total operating capital of the above 110 billion won shall be paid in cash, and the remainder shall be paid in cash according to the amount of credit. Since the Plaintiffs were to receive some of the new operating capital as of December 31, 2012 and are expected to receive the remainder in the future, the amount equivalent to the above 24% of the total operating capital and the value of the shares to be acquired by the Plaintiffs shall be deducted from the claim amount in this case. At least the amount of cash repayment and the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim shall be simultaneously implemented from the last day of 2013 to the end of the year 2013.

B) Determination

First, in relation to the assertion that the amount already paid should be deducted, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs received part of the amount of new operation funds from the Pungco industry, and rather, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 20, it can be recognized that the Pungco paid 16.1 billion won to the Pungco according to the rehabilitation plan for 2012 was not used for the repayment of the above new operation funds claim. Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant Pungco is without merit.

Next, in relation to the assertion that the amount to be paid in the future should be deducted, the defendants' loss apportionment obligation based on the loss apportionment undertaking of this case had already been finally determined when the workout program of this case was interrupted due to the failure to pay for the wind industry. Thus, even if the plaintiffs were to receive new operating funds from the wind industry to the cash-equity swap stocks, they do not have to be deducted in advance from the defendants' loss apportionment obligation, and therefore, the defendant cam's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. The defendants' offset defense and the judgment as to the plaintiff's counterclaim against the plaintiff's bank, Nonghyup Bank, National Bank of Korea, and the defendant's Campco

A. Summary of the defendants' assertion

As the Plaintiff Bank, the Nonghyup Bank, and the National Bank violated the obligations stipulated by the resolution of the creditor financial council, the Pung Forest Industry was finally insolvent. Accordingly, the Defendants suffered damages from the Defendants’ obligation to pay the loss apportionment pursuant to the instant loss apportionment undertaking. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Nonghyup and the National Bank are liable to compensate the Defendants for the amount equivalent to the loss apportionment borne by the Defendants pursuant to Article 21(1)1 of the Weather Promotion Act, and each of the said Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants against the Defendants should be offset against the Defendant’s damage compensation claim. In addition, the said Plaintiffs must pay the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claims offset against the Defendant Campco.

B. Whether the Plaintiff’s damage liability arises from the Plaintiff’s bank, Nonghyup Bank, and National Bank

1) Violation of a resolution by the Council of the Plaintiff 1 Bank, Nonghyup Bank, National Bank, and National Bank 3 and 4

A) Whether the additional fund burden of the winding industry itself is a violation of a resolution

(1) The defendants' assertion

After the resolution of the Council 3 and 4, the above plaintiffs violated the obligation to restrict additional fund burden (such as construction amounts, loan amounts, etc.) for each PF business place (right to claim performance of the guaranteed obligation) in relation to processing of each PF business place (right to claim performance of the guaranteed obligation) by requiring the PF business entity to pay additional funds, such as construction amounts, etc.

(2) Determination

Around 3, 44: (a) the Council decided to restrict the burden of additional funds (such as construction accounts, loan, etc.) for each PF-type business establishment; (b) the PF-type 2 was reduced to 3; (c) the PF-type 2; (d) the PF-type 12; and (e) the PP-type 40-1 and 40-2; and (e) the fact-finding inquiry conducted on October 6, 2014; (d) the PF-type 2; (e) the PF-type 14,903; (e) the PF-type 2; (e) the PF-type 2; (e) the PF-type 3; (e) the PF-type 24; (e) the PF-type 2; (e) the PF-type 30-14; and (e) the PP-type 30-14; and (e) the PP-type 2430-2, the Council (3) the 1305.

1. The parties to the PF loan is an executor of the PF loan business. It is difficult for the Plaintiffs to support the PF loan industry only by indirect means with the approval or consent of change of the terms and conditions of the PF loan, project costs, etc. The primary responsibility and authority for the management of project costs, such as the progress of the PF business and the payment of construction costs, are in the executor. ② The 3th Council declared the basic principles to restrict the additional financing burden (construction amounts, loan amounts, etc.) on each PF business place of the PF forest industry, while promoting the smooth progress of the PF business, so that it is difficult for the 3rd Council to separately determine the disposal plan for each separate business place, the normal progress business place, and the 4th Council to fully impose heavy financial burden on each PF business place, and further, it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to assume the additional financing burden on each of the PF-related business establishment to support the additional financing burden on the PF-related business.

Therefore, the following points are examined as to whether the above plaintiffs properly implemented specific measures decided by the Council 3 and 4.

B) Whether the repayment of the loan interest is in violation of the resolution

(1) Defendant Campco’s assertion

The plaintiff bank received approximately 68 billion won from the year 2009 to the year 2011 as the interest for the PF loan in relation to the business place of the Daejeon Ho-dong, thereby violating the resolution of the 3 and 4th Council.

(2) Determination

According to the evidence Eul evidence Nos. 18, 19, and 20, Pungan Construction, which is an executor of the Daejeon-dong workplace, shall be acknowledged as interest expenses, for Pungan Construction, 23,645,137,322 won in 2009, 21,172,222,98 won in 2010, and 23,232,476,493 won in 201.

However, as seen above and evidence evidence No. 41, PF loan obligations were borne by PF loan obligations for more than 10 financial institutions, such as the Promotion Savings Bank, in addition to the Plaintiff us bank, and the Plaintiff us bank cannot be deemed to be related to the interest on PF loan of KRW 15,376,931,489 as interest on PF loan of KRW 44.2 billion from April 30, 209 to April 16, 2012, in light of the fact that PF loan of KRW 5,894,201,61,614 as above was received respectively from PF loan of KRW 15,376,939 as interest on PF loan of KRW 90 billion from PF construction to April 16, 2012.

In addition, as seen earlier, ① PF treatment of the third Council limits the burden of additional funds (such as construction amounts, loans, etc.) to each PF workplace as its own fund. However, with respect to a normal progress workplace, all measures necessary for the completion of the workplace, such as payment of a normal construction cost, etc. (PF maturity extension, repayment schedule adjustment, and new construction cost support, etc.) should be carried out under the responsibility of the PF Handling Agency. Specifically, with respect to the Daejeon-dong workplace which is a normal progress workplace, the current PF lending extended and repayment schedule adjustment was determined and the interest rate of the PF lending was not limited. ② Within the fourth Council processing of the fourth Council, the PF industry also limits the receipt of additional funds from each PF workplace as its own fund. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the PF lending rate can not be applied to each workplace, such as normal payment of construction cost, and the Plaintiff’s new loan repayment rate can not be applied only to the existing PFF lending institution and the reasons for the extension of the PF lending rate.

C) Whether the repayment of the principal of the PF loan is against the resolution

(1) The defendants' assertion

The plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the plaintiff National Bank violated the resolution of the Council 3 and 4 by receiving the redemption of the principal of the PF loan without delaying the maturity of the principal of the PF loan in relation to the Incheon Cheongbu Business Office.

(2) Determination

(A) Whether the third council resolution violated

According to the results of the fact-finding inquiry inquiry conducted on February 27, 2013 with respect to the PF loan principal from April 10, 2009 to July 22, 201, which is the date on which the third Council was held, the third Council was held, and the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank is recognized as the fact-finding that the PF loan principal was KRW 18 billion in relation to the Incheon Cheongbu Business ( KRW 9 billion on April 13, 2009, KRW 4.2 billion on April 13, 2010, KRW 4.2 billion on April 12, 2010, and KRW 4.8 billion on October 12, 2010, KRW 1.6 billion in the PF loan principal, and KRW 16 billion in the PF loan principal in relation to the Incheon Cheongbu Business ( KRW 16.0 billion in the redemption of KRW 16 billion in the PF loan principal from each of the Incheon Cheongbu Business.

(4) According to the revised statement of 1, 2, 2, or 3 of the loan repayment agreement concluded between the Export Bank and the Export Bank for the first time to repay the loan amount of 00 million won, the Export Bank for the first time to 70 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the first time to 70 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the first time to 70 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the first time to 70 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the first time to 10 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the second time to 70 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the second time to 70 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the second time to 100 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the second time to 30 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the second time to 10 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the second time to 300 billion won new loan repayment agreement for the second time new loan repayment agreement for the second time to 200 billion won or more, the Export Bank for the second time new loan repayment agreement for the second time to 2000 billion won new loan repayment agreement.

As seen in the above facts, it cannot be deemed that the repayment of the loan principal is in violation of the third council's resolution on the re-resolution plan, as long as the above plaintiffs re-resolution the repayment schedule with respect to the business place which is the PE handling institution, and the repayment of principal was not determined as the debt re-resolution plan, and the repayment of principal was delayed, and as long as the above plaintiffs and Japan Construction delayed the repayment of part of the loan principal, and made the payment of the principal preferentially by 70% of the construction cost, it cannot be deemed that the above plaintiffs received the repayment of the loan principal in accordance with the re-resolution schedule.

(B) Whether the resolution of the 4th Council was violated

According to the results of the fact-finding inquiry conducted on February 27, 2013, Gap 2, Eul 2, 2, and 3's each entry in the PF lending industry, the 4th Council's PF treatment plan is limited to each PF workplace, but repayment of principal shall be deferred by the grace period ( December 31, 2013), and the 100 million won shall be paid preferentially to the Incheon Council for the PF lending of 200 million won in consideration of the occupancy situation of the purchaser and the secured value of the house unsold in lots, and the 1.5 billion won shall be recovered through the FF lending of 30,000,000,000 won shall be determined at 1.3 billion,000,000 won shall be determined at 20,000,000 won shall be determined at 1.3 billion,000,000 won shall be determined at 1.3 billion,000,0000 won shall be determined at 2,01,04,000

As to this, the above plaintiffs, (1) the fourth Council's PE processing plan does not necessarily require priority to coordinating claims, such as extension of maturity or adjustment of repayment schedule for PF loans, but is withdrawal of measures, such as extension of maturity and adjustment of repayment schedule, if necessary for the completion of the pertinent PF workplace through a three-party agreement of the PF Handling Agency, and is provided under the responsibility of the PF Handling Agency, and (2) the above plaintiffs are provided with necessary measures at an appropriate time under the responsibility of the PF lending agency, and (3) the above plaintiffs are provided with a modified agreement with the parties to the PF loan agreement and are repaid the principal of the loan accordingly, and (4) the above plaintiffs cannot refuse to repay the loan in accordance with the agreement to avoid delayed liability, and thus, it cannot be said that the repayment of the principal of the loan was in violation of the fourth Council's resolution.

However, unlike the third council's PF treatment draft, the fourth council's PF treatment draft has suspended the repayment of principal to a workplace in normal progress until December 31, 2013, and explicitly provided for the special agreement to apply the same special agreement in cases where the details of the agreement entered into and the special agreement for the implementation of the management normalization plan do not coincide with each other. The lender can postpone repayment of principal without any disadvantage such as delayed liability, etc. in the construction of one week. Thus, it cannot be said that the above plaintiffs violated the council's resolution merely because the repayment of principal was made by the re-resolution plan under the modified agreement entered into between the parties prior to the fourth council. The aforementioned plaintiffs' assertion in this regard is without merit.

D) Whether the failure to lend new funds constitutes a breach of resolution

(1) The defendants' assertion

3. Within the 4th Council PF processing, the PF Handling Agency determines to take all necessary measures (such as extension of the PF maturity, adjustment of repayment schedule, and new support for construction costs, etc.) for the completion of the workplace, such as payment of normal construction costs, and in particular, the resolution at the 4th Council to newly provide 10 billion won was premised on each of the relevant PF handling agencies to provide new loans to each of the relevant PF business sites. Therefore, even though the Plaintiff’s Bank, the Nonghyup Bank, and the National Bank did not immediately provide new loans to PP business, it did not comply with such resolution.

(2) Determination

(A) Whether a new loan obligation equivalent to the expected maximum construction cost arises

(6) According to each PF processing plan adopted by the Council, each of the following circumstances can be known by adding the above evidence and evidence and evidence 9: (i) the PF handling institution's duty to provide new financing to each of the above PF business 3 and 4; (ii) the financial institution's new financing for construction costs is required to determine the treatment plan in consultation with the executor and contractor of each of the PF business; (iii) other measures such as extension of the PF maturity, repayment schedule adjustment, interest reduction and exemption; (iv) the treatment plan for each of the above items attached to each of the above items is stated only as the maximum construction cost burden or the maximum shortage of each business place; (iii) the financial institution's obligation to provide new financing for the PF loans to each of the above items is difficult to consider as the financial institution's new financing for construction costs; and (iv) the new financing plan for the PF financing institution's new financing for the PF-related business established on June 22, 2011 to the extent that it is difficult for the financial institution to consider new financing for each item.

(B) Occurrence of new loan obligations

(1) Where a new loan is required:

3. In principle, it shall be handled to limit the burden of additional funds (construction amounts, loans, etc.) for each PF business establishment within the fourth Council's PF processing period. In addition, it shall be determined that the construction cost payment method, extension of the period of payment, exemption from interest, postponement of repayment of principal (the fourth Council) is changed in the normal business establishment in a fixed-term manner, and if necessary, new loans are made. In particular, the fourth Council PF processing plan provides for new funds (construction loans) at an interest rate of 6% within the expected maximum construction cost-bearing amount, not only in the disposal plan of principal and interest but also in the case of re-resolution of financial conditions for PF financing at a normal business establishment. In light of these facts and the contents, effectiveness, degree of burden on PF bonds agencies, it is reasonable to view new loans among the above detailed measures to ensure that construction cost can be paid monthly according to the wind industry and that new funds can be paid monthly, and the construction cost can be adjusted to the maximum amount of the PF loans and the expected construction amount, etc., within the scope of additional financial burden.

Therefore, this article examines the necessity of new funds loans for each PF workplace.

(2) The Incheon National Statistical Office.

A. From 24 to 28, A. 14 to 19, A. 30, 62, 63, and 4-1 of the total amount of the construction work that was paid to 30.7 billion won by the time of 00, 300, 14 to 206, 300, 200, 300, 300, 300, 200, 16, 300, 16, 300, 16, 300, 300, 200, 16, 306, 300, 200, 16, 306, 300, 300, 16, 305, 206, 300,000,000,000,000 won of the total amount of the construction work, 1.7,000,000,00 won.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank after the third council concluded an agreement to change the construction cost from the existing payment to the due payment, the payment of the construction cost shall be changed from the existing payment to the due payment, the payment of the construction cost shall be made in preference to the PF loans up to 70% of the converted construction cost, and the payment of the construction cost shall be made in preference to the PF loans. Nevertheless, even though the PF loans have been withdrawn, the outstanding amount of the construction cost has been continuously increased, and the Pelim industry should cover the construction cost with its own funds. Accordingly, the plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank of Korea are the following measures to restrict the additional financing burden of Pelim industry, and the need for new loans has occurred within the maximum expected construction cost.

(B) On the other hand, the above plaintiffs asserted that there was no need for additional loans for the payment of the construction amount, since the dispute between Palim Industry and Paju Construction, and the amount of the construction amount actually paid was unclear, and the amount of the construction amount actually settled is not only 15 billion won but only 15 billion won, and the sales revenue account of the above workplace remains sufficient funds to pay the construction amount.

If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence mentioned above, Gap, and Eul evidence Nos. 14 through 17, and Eul evidence No. 2, the daily construction and wind industry shall be apportioned on May 15, 2009, which is after the third council; expenses for promotion of sale of unsold officetels; expenses for modification of designs and M/H renovation for the promotion of sale in lots; and expenses for sale in lots shall be apportioned to 50:50,00,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000: 2.4,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

However, in accordance with the separate agreement between ○○ Pung-ro Industry and Il-ju Construction, the accounts receivable for the construction industry have been continuously increased after the third council resolution. Under the resolution of the ○○3 and 4 council, the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank, the national bank, which is a PF dealing agency that bears the obligation to provide new loans, continues to look at whether the outstanding amount of the construction works for the Pung-ro industry has to be increased, and if the outstanding amount of the construction works has been increased, appropriate measures should be taken. Even if the ○○○ Construction was completed, the construction works amount should not be paid first, since the 70% or more of the construction costs should be paid first according to the change agreement with the Pung-ro Industry, and the above 4th or more of the construction costs should not be determined within the scope of the outstanding amount of the construction works to be paid by the Council, and the above Plaintiffs cannot be seen to have been aware of the fact that the funds for the Pung-ro industry would have been increased within the scope of the outstanding amount of the construction works to be paid by the Council.

(3) The place of business of satisfar.

If Eul evidence Nos. 12 and Eul 40-1 and 2-1 and 40-2 of 40, and the purport of oral arguments is added as a result of the fact-finding inquiry conducted on October 6, 2014, the ○3 council determined that with respect to a workplace which resumes a business after reserving for a certain period, all necessary measures for completion of the workplace, such as payment of normal construction costs (PF maturity extension, repayment schedule adjustment, new construction costs loan assistance, etc.), should be carried out under the responsibility of the PF Handling Agency, and it is classified as a workplace resume a business by 50% until the parcelling-out rate of 50%, and determined a redemption schedule extension and repayment schedule by 40-14 as detailed disposal plan, and it did not impose a duty to change the method of payment of construction costs by 140-1 and 40-1, 204, 30-16, 207, 30-197, 40-2, 197, 250-1.

According to the above facts, in the case of a reasonable-end workplace, even though it was classified into a business resumption workplace after a grace period at the third council, and if necessary, it was determined to lend new construction costs. However, as the maximum amount of construction cost burden, which is the premise for the loan of new construction costs, is not determined in the detailed measures of each workplace, the obligation to lend new construction costs cannot be deemed to have been granted because the maximum amount of construction cost burden, which is the premise for the loan of new construction costs, is not determined in the detailed measures of each workplace. The fourth council determined the preferential payment of construction outstanding amounts, and the secured loan has been implemented until the stable redemption is possible. However, since the amount of construction payment of the said workplace has decreased after the fourth council, and there has not been a reduction in the amount of construction payment of the said workplace, or there

(4) Daejeon place of business

The argument of the parties

Defendant Campco asserts that the balance of the construction cost loan owed by the Daejeon-dong workplace was KRW 30.6 billion around the end of March 2009, which was around May 10, 2012, and the amount increased to KRW 81.8 billion around May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff Bank, the PF Handling Agency of the said workplace, did not perform its duty to lend new construction cost loan to the PPF Service.

In this regard, the plaintiff bank asserts that, on May 10, 2012, there was no need to lend new funds, since it did not occur any options construction cost, such as construction cost of 2 complex complexes, construction cost of balcony expansion cost, market price profit guarantee, interest on payment, and sales agency fee, etc., included in the amount of construction accounts as of May 10, 2012, or there is no construction cost which is the final burden of winding construction, and it is not the construction cost which is not the final burden of winding construction, and except for this, since the amount of the construction

According to the fact-finding inquiry report dated October 6, 2014, Gap evidence Nos. 31, Eul evidence Nos. 11 through 15, and Paelim industry's fact-finding inquiry report of October 6, 2014, around the end of Daejeon-dong, which was around March 10, 2009. However, in an investigation report attached to the rehabilitation procedure for the Palim industry prepared around May 10, 2012, the outstanding amount of construction works related to the above workplace was investigated as KRW 81,753,723,723,00, which was 81,753,787,706,00 won for the construction work price of one complex, and the construction cost of a commercial building consisting of KRW 10,00,000,000 for construction cost under the additional contract, exceeding KRW 9,769,500,000,000 for balcony construction cost, exceeding KRW 281,2381,28400

As seen earlier, the council of creditor financial institutions separately determines a plan to adjust the existing bonds to PF loan industry, a plan to directly provide new funds and a plan to process the PF disposal. The council of creditor financial institutions separately set the basic principles that restrict additional funds to be borne by the Council of creditor financial institutions, and presented “construction amounts and loans” as an example. Under the basic principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the council of creditor financial institutions has a duty to provide funds only to the outstanding construction amounts related to the PF loan and to provide funds incurred in relation to the project, and it is difficult to view that it is difficult to view that the council of creditor financial institutions has no duty to provide funds to the new funds at the time of the commencement of construction project or to provide new funds to the extent that the new funds were not extended by 10% and new funds are not extended by 10% and new funds are not extended by 10% and new funds are not extended by 20% and new funds are not extended by 13% and new funds are not extended by 10% and new funds are not extended by 10%.

(a)the 2nd construction cost;

According to Gap evidence 30-1, 2, 31, 35, and 40 evidence, and the fact-finding inquiry inquiry report conducted on October 27, 2015 by Anajin Accounting Corporation, the whole purport of pleadings is added to our bank's financial information inquiry report made on June 5, 2015, one complex among Daejeon Yandong workplaces was commenced on January 12, 2009 and completed on December 10 of the same year, but two complexes were not commenced until the completion of the work period for the relevant industry; the total contract amount of the ○○ 1 Complex Corporation is KRW 451,286,490,00, and KRW 200,000, KRW 423,490,000, KRW 200, KRW 74,784,707, and KRW 207, etc., which were presented as the basis for the construction contract amount for the construction industry, and the outstanding amount is not included in the application.

As to this, Defendant Campco asserts that if there was a work already performed in relation to the two complex construction works even before the commencement, the expenses for the work are naturally appropriated as the amount receivable for the construction, and that the wind industry is the excess construction cost in the account book (statement) or in excess construction cost in the account book (statement), 11,762,310,343 is the amount payable for the construction work related to the two complex. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the wind industry has the work performed in relation to the two complex construction, and that the excess construction cost in the account book (statement) of the wind industry is the construction cost related to the two complex, the above assertion is without merit.

(b)observery construction costs, such as balcony expansion costs;

According to the fact-finding report on October 6, 2014 on Gap evidence 30-1, 20-2, and the winding industry, the winding industry paid KRW 11,097,042,582 as the option construction cost, such as balcony expansion cost (i.e., balcony expansion construction cost of KRW 9,769,221,582 + KRW 1,327,821,000). According to the construction contract entered into between the winding industry and the winding construction contract entered into between the winding industry, this part of the cost is not included in the construction cost to be paid to the winding industry, and it is recognized that the buyer bears the final burden. Thus, this part cannot be viewed as the construction cost to be paid from the winding industry, which constitutes an outstanding amount belonging to the responsibility of the PF Handling institution.

According to the statements in Eul 50, 52 through 56, Eul 57 evidence 57, Eul 1 and 2, the ○ Pream Industry agreed on October 14, 2008, prior to the implementation of the Work Process of this case, to guarantee the implementation profit of KRW 20 billion in connection with the Daejeon Pream Construction. The ○ Pream Industry issued a promissory note of KRW 17 billion in face value to Pream Construction in accordance with the above agreement and paid KRW 3 billion in cash on January 4, 2010; the ○ Pream Construction transferred the said promissory note to Pream Capital on February 1, 2010; the Pream Industry, upon a request for payment of Pream Capital; the ○ Pream Industry, upon the issuance of a promissory note of KRW 17 billion in face value and KRW 1.5 billion in face value and KRW 1.5 billion in total, paid the outstanding amount to the Pream Construction in cash on January 2, 2012.

3. The fourth Council set the basic principles to restrict additional financing, and presented "construction amounts and loans" as an example. Under the above basic principles, the following basic principles include changes in the method of payment in installments, if necessary, new financing, and extension of the period of payment in installments, and there is no other provision to restrict all obligations or obligations, and the new financing is limited to "construction costs" not "additional financing charges," and the new financing is limited to "construction costs," it is not all additional financing charges, but it is limited to construction amounts or loans related to PF loans. The above guarantee amount paid for PPF construction cannot be deemed as actual construction amounts. Moreover, the above guarantee amount paid for PPF projects cannot be deemed as included in the performance of obligations under the terms of "additional financing burden" which the PPF Handling Agency should limit the implementation of obligations under the existing existing agreement, and the PPF Handling Agency or creditor Bank or the Council cannot be deemed as falling under the implementation of the PPF project's obligation distribution agreement between the PPF business entity and the entity responsible for the implementation of the project in question.

(d)interest of intermediate payments and sales agency fees;

In addition to the purport of Gap evidence 22-6, Eul's evidence 9, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, Eul's evidence 58-1 through 7, Eul's evidence 59, and Eul's evidence 59, it is recognized that Eul bears 37,448, 492,140 won as part payment interest and sales agency fee in relation to the Daejeon's business.

According to the fact-finding inquiry report conducted on April 3, 2015, Gap evidence Nos. 30-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 9, and PF-2, the PF-2, and PP-3, the PF-2, and PP-3, the PF-3, based on the fact-finding survey conducted on April 3, 2015, the PF-2, the PF-2, the PF-2, concluded that the PP-2, when entering into a construction contract with the PP-2, PP-3, the PP-2, the PP-2, the PP-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, the PP-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, the PF-7, should not be deemed the outstanding payment.

(e)loans KRW 5.8 billion;

Defendant Campco asserts that loans of KRW 5.8 billion have been additionally granted twice in the year 2010 after the resolution of the third Council.

According to the results of the fact-finding inquiry conducted on April 3, 2015, Eul's statement of 39 evidence and the scenic industry as of April 3, 2015, among the above 5........ billion won, 3 billion won as of January 4, 2010 among the above 5...... billion won as of January 4, 2010, the remainder of the profit of 20 billion won as of January 4, 2010, which the scenic industry should pay for the scenic construction as the contract amount, excluding the amount of 17 billion won as the contract amount, and the amount of 2.8 billion won as of March 9, 2010 was used for the sale of commercial buildings as the money for short-term loans. Thus, even if the account amount is a short-term loan, the above expenses under the contract amount for the construction of the scenic industry and the scenic construction cannot be said to be the construction cost related to PF loans that have the right to be paid from the scenic industry.

ⓕ 원고 우리은행의 이자감면 등 조치

Meanwhile, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 31, 32, 41, 42, and Eul evidence Nos. 23, the following facts are as follows: (a) ○○ Plaintiff Bank and other institutions dealing with PF construction; (b) cream industry has been postponed on October 8, 2009, after the third conference; (c) 40% of the repayment date of the principal of the loan was deferred on December 31, 201; (d) 40% of the total amount of the loan to the 1st Council within the expected construction cost-sharing amount; and (b) 4% of the interest rate on new loans and interest reduction or exemption were allowed by the 1st National Assembly to be selected within the scope of the expected maximum construction cost-sharing amount; (b) 1% of the interest rate on new loans from the 1st National Assembly to the 1st National Assembly, and (c) 4% of the total amount of the loan extended to the 1st National Assembly, 2011.

(4) Busan Southern-dong workplaces

Defendant Camp asserts that the PF-dong PF-dong PF-dong PF-based PF-based PF-based PF-related industry had additionally borne KRW 25,889,705,647 by the PF-based PF-related industry at its own cost.

According to Eul's evidence Nos. 34 through 37, the fact that the wind industry spent KRW 25,889,705,647 as the model cargo construction cost from 2009 to 2011 is recognized. However, according to Eul's evidence No. 38, the construction of model housing (including site lease) related to apartment sale, operation and management affairs are recognized to be included within the scope of services of the wind industry, which is the contractor under the construction contract entered into between the wind industry and the above workplace, and therefore, the wind industry cannot receive additional payment for the cost of construction related to the model cargo in addition to the construction contract amount, and thus, it does not constitute the outstanding construction amount that the plaintiff bank has to provide financial support.

(5) Educational-oriented third place of business.

Defendant Camp stated that the liquidity of the scenic industry has deteriorated by allowing the unsold apartment unit to be paid in cash in accordance with the council’s resolution, even though the unsold apartment unit was unsold in lots to be paid in payment for the construction cost, as the amount of construction work in the third place of business, from around April 2009 to around KRW 52,980,018,00, to KRW 62,345,281,000,000, around May 10, 2012.

According to the evidence Nos. 25 and 26 of Eul, around April 2009, the outstanding amount of construction works related to the third place of business was KRW 52,980,000,000, but it is only recognized that the outstanding amount of construction works was reduced as KRW 40,113,269,000 on May 10, 2012 at the time of the rehabilitation of the scenic industry at the time of the rehabilitation of the scenic industry, and it cannot be deemed that the outstanding amount of construction works was paid as unsold apartment without receiving the outstanding amount in cash, and the liquidity aggravated by deeming it as the outstanding amount of construction works to be the outstanding apartment. Thus, the above argument by the defendant Campco is without merit.

2) Violation of resolution by the 5th Council of the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank

A) Violation of a resolution by the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank or the National Bank

On April 23, 2012, the fifth Council held on April 23, 2012, on the ground that the liquidity of the scenic industry occurred due to the failure of the resolution of the council of creditor financial institutions by some of the PF handling agencies at the time, and the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank, the PF handling agencies at the business establishment of Incheon Cheongbu and the Sinjin-si, decided to provide support of KRW 53.8 billion and KRW 26.9 billion, respectively. However, the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank did not provide financial support under the above resolution to the PF industry despite notification of the execution of loans by the Plaintiff Bank, the principal creditor bank, and thus, the said Plaintiffs violated the fifth Council’s resolution, barring special circumstances.

B) As to the allegation that the resolution of the 5th Council by the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank is invalid

(1) The plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and National Bank's assertion

As to this, the plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the national bank's fifth Council's PF disposition plan are ① the contents of a new credit extension order only to the plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the national bank among the members of the Council, which are contrary to fairness and fairness. ② It clearly excluded it from granting the opposite claim under Article 20 (1) of the Promotion Act because it constitutes a new credit extension in essence different from the resolution of the Council's resolution of the 3 and 4th Council. ③ Despite the notice of convening the Council 7 days prior to the date of resolution, there is procedural defect in the notice of convening the Council on the date of resolution, and ④ The plaintiff bank, the principal creditor bank, has determined the amount of the new fund by concealing disputes between the public corporation's outstanding amounts and the public corporation's construction, and its repayment resources are also unreasonable, such as unreasonable restriction on the amount of surplus construction payment of the relevant workplace. Thus, it is not effective against the above plaintiffs.

(2) Determination

(A) The Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank have increased the outstanding amounts of construction works in relation to the business establishment of the Incheon National Bank, thus delaying the repayment of PF loans in accordance with the 4th Council's PF processing plan, failing to implement a new loan within the maximum amount of construction cost, although it is necessary to implement a new loan within the scope of the expected construction cost. The 5th Council concluded that the liquidity shortage of the PP forest industry was deepened as the above plaintiffs failed to implement the resolution, and decided to grant the above plaintiffs the obligation to implement the new loan for the normal implementation of the work of the instant case.

However, as seen earlier, 3 and 4 Council PF treatment bills are subject to all PF dealing agencies, and when necessary under the autonomous judgment of the PF dealing agencies, the PF treatment bills are essentially different from 3 and 4 Council PF treatment bills in essence from 3 and 4 Council's PF treatment bills inasmuch as the 5th Council's PF treatment bills are subject to only the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the Plaintiff National Bank, and only the new loan to PF industry is subject to the obligation to specify the amount and conditions of the loan, as well as the new loan within the expected construction cost, among various measures such as postponement, exemption and reduction of interest, postponement of repayment of principal, etc.

(B) As such, since the fifth Council's PF treatment plan concerns new credit extension, it is deemed that the opposing claim under Article 20 (1) of the FF treatment plan is granted to the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank. The fifth Council's PF treatment plan concerns the implementation of the pre-existing resolution plan, and thus excludes Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank from the opportunity to exercise opposing claim on the ground that it is not a case of commencement of the joint administrative proceeding by creditor financial institutions, readjustment of claims, or new credit extension. Thus, it unfairly limits Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank's legitimate exercise of rights.

(C) In addition, Article 15(1) and (2) of the Promotion Act provides that the principal creditor bank shall take charge of convening and operating the creditor financial institutions’ consultative council. Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Promotion Act provides that when the principal creditor bank calls a consultative council of creditor financial institutions, it shall notify the creditor financial institutions, etc. of the date, time, venue, purpose, etc. of the meeting by not later than three days prior to the scheduled date of holding the meeting (in the case of a meeting to deliberate and resolve on the matters concerning re-resolution of claims or the formulation of credit extension plans, not later than seven days prior to the scheduled date of holding the meeting. However, the foregoing provision provides that the fifth council’s prior processing plan constitutes a new credit extension in essence different from the third and fourth council’s PF treatment plan. As such, as provided in the Enforcement Decree of the Promotion Act, it shall notify the creditor financial institutions, etc. of the date, time, place, purpose, etc

However, in full view of each of the statements and arguments in Eul 4, 5, and 6-1, 2-1, 2-1, 6-1, and 2-2, the Plaintiff bank: (a) agreed on the agenda to be referred to the Council on April 16, 2012, and (b) requested withdrawal by Plaintiff National Bank on April 20, 2012; and (c) on April 23, 2012, the date on which the fiveth Council was held, the Plaintiff bank requested withdrawal of the agenda for the fifth Council of Creditor Financial Institutions, which was sent from April 17, 2012; and (d) on April 23, 2012, the date on which the five Council was held, the Plaintiff bank issued a five Council meeting to the creditor financial institutions of the PF workplace, and notified the details of the revised agenda by amending paragraph 4 (1) of the first agenda for the PF agenda for the creditor financial institutions; and (d) thus, the fifth Council’s resolution on the PF agenda has procedural defects in the notification procedure.

As to this, Defendant Campco, the fifth resolution of the Council was made as a kind of compulsory performance against Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and National Bank, which violated the resolution of the Council 3 and 4, and thus, it is sufficient to give the opportunity to present opinions to Plaintiff Nonghyup and National Bank. On March 29, 2012, before the fifth meeting of the Council was held, the creditor financial institution's Steering Committee discussed the fifth agenda of the Council. On April 17, 2012, Plaintiff NH Bank and Plaintiff National Bank were aware of the agenda of the Council since they sent the finalized agenda after holding the meeting of the Council 5th meeting of the Council, and thus, Plaintiff NH Bank and Plaintiff National Bank were given a sufficient time to express their opinions and make decisions. In addition, it asserted that there is no procedural defect since there was a sufficient reason to hold the fifth meeting of the Council.

However, as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the fifth resolution simply aims to enforce the implementation of the resolution of the Council, or that it is a sanction against the violation of the resolution. Furthermore, unlike the third and fourth Council's PF treatment draft, the fifth Council's PF treatment draft orders a large amount of new credit extension of KRW 80.7 billion. As long as disputes have continued between the Plaintiff Bank, the Plaintiff Bank, and the National Bank of Korea, and the National Bank of Korea on the amount of the outstanding amount of construction works, legitimacy of the fifth Council's PF treatment draft, grant of the right to demand purchase of claims, etc., the defect in the notification procedure cannot be justified solely on the basis that the Plaintiff Bank and the National Bank of Korea were aware of the contents of the fifth Council's PF treatment draft from April 16, 2012 to the Working-Level Council.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s bank, the principal creditor bank, could sufficiently predict the default of the Pream Industry, which occurred due to the failure to pay a bill with the maturity on May 2, 2012, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an urgent case, which is an exception to the notification seven days prior to the date.

(D) Furthermore, despite the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the Plaintiff’s National Bank’s request for an inspection of accounts receivable for the construction works, the fifth Council’s fifth PF treatment plan calculates the accounts receivable for the construction on the basis of only the data submitted by the PP industry, and sets new loans at KRW 80.7 billion, which is the actual cost of construction, much more than 15.1 billion, which can be paid from the daily construction, without any special reason, but, without any special reason, transfers the business risk of the Incheon Cheongbu business to the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the Plaintiff National Bank. Furthermore, the fifth Council’s fifth Council’s reasoning as to the payment of the accounts receivable to the Plaintiff for the construction work to the extent that it does not go against any other creditor financial institution’s obligation to fairly and fairly bear the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff’s financial institution, the pertinent PF treatment institution, and the Plaintiff’s financial institution’s financial burden on behalf of the Plaintiff’s creditor financial institution for the performance of the accounts receivable for the construction work, as well as any other risk adjustment to the extent that it does not violate any other risk.

(E) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the fifth Council PF treatment plan does not have effect on the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank due to such substantial and procedural defects.

3) As to the assertion of violation of the Council’s resolution

(A) Diversion of new operating funds;

Defendant Campco asserts that the use of the amount of KRW 80.7 billion out of the new credit extension funds under the 4th Council's new credit extension funds by the Plaintiff Bank, the Nonghyup Bank, and the national bank for the settlement of its PF workplace accounts, etc. is a violation of a resolution to use the new credit extension funds only as the operation funds of the PF workplace industry. However, there is no evidence to deem that the use of the new credit extension funds was limited to the operation funds of the Pf workplace industry. Therefore, the above argument

B) The Plaintiff bank’s failure to provide 5 billion won support

Defendant Camp alleged that the Plaintiff Bank violated its resolution by failing to provide support of KRW 5 billion out of KRW 75 billion, which shall support the winding industry in accordance with the 4th Council’s new financial assistance plan. However, each of the items of evidence Nos. 22-1 through 9, and evidence Nos. 38 is insufficient to recognize the above assertion. Rather, according to the evidence No. 38, the Plaintiff Bank loaned KRW 5 billion to the winding industry on December 16, 201. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

As to this, even if the Plaintiff’s Bank extended KRW 5 billion to the PF-related industry around December 201, 201, the Defendant asserted that the amount of KRW 22.9 billion was used as the payment of bills at the Y-dong workplace, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a new subsidy. However, as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the use of new credit extension funds was limited to the funds for the PF-related industry’s operation, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the resolution to use the funds for the construction payment at the PF-related workplace.

4) Determination on Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and National Bank’s assertion

A) As to the assertion that matters to be resolved on a PF workplace management plan are not subject to the Promotion Act

(1) The plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and National Bank's assertion

Article 10(1) of the Promotion Act provides that the relevant enterprise may be re-entrusted or newly extended credit pursuant to a resolution of the Council, and the matters concerning the adjustment of claims and extension of credit which may be resolved by the Council under the Promotion Act shall be limited to those concerning the relevant enterprise. However, the resolution of the Council 3 and 4 cannot be deemed as the adjustment of claims or extension of credit to the PF industry, which is the resolution of the Council Council under the Promotion Act. Thus, the resolution of the Council 3 and 4 cannot be deemed as the adjustment of claims or extension of credit to the PF industry, which is the resolution of the Council Council under the Promotion Act, and thus, the Plaintiff

(2) Determination

Article 10(1) of the Promotion Act provides that “A creditor financial institution may, if deemed necessary for the normalization of management of an enterprise showing signs of insolvency, adjust its claims or grant new credit to the relevant enterprise” in accordance with a resolution of the Council.

○ The Plaintiff claims against the PF lending industry. The enforcement company is required to repay the construction cost obligations to the PF lending company in preference to the loan obligations to the PF-handling company by re-resolutioning the terms and conditions of the loan such as maturity extension and repayment schedule adjustment for the PF lending claim against the PF-handling company. If necessary, the implementation company's new loan of the construction cost to the PF-handling company for the smooth payment of the construction cost. Accordingly, the implementation company's re-resolution of the PF lending claim against the PF-handling company can be re-resolution of the PF lending claim against the PF-handling company of the time company's loan obligations to the PF-handling company. As long as the 00 Plaintiffs participated in the work of this case upon the request for the performance of the PP-related industry's guarantee obligation, it is not possible to directly extend new credit to the PP lending company in accordance with the resolution of the Council pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the PF-73 and 4th Council, and thus, it does not constitute a new resolution of the PF lending company's resolution or new loan.

(B) As to the assertion that all resolutions are implemented upon completion of the workplace

The above plaintiffs held that all measures necessary for the completion of the workplace, including the payment of normal construction costs, shall be taken under the responsibility of the PF Handling Agency for the completion of the workplace. It is not a device to ensure the recovery of construction costs for the PF lending industry as the PF lending industry fails to pay construction costs to the subcontractor due to the lack of construction costs, but it is not a device to ensure the recovery of construction costs for the PF lending industry. The above plaintiffs completed each workplace by taking measures to ensure the payment of construction costs necessary for the PF lending industry by changing the terms and conditions of the PF lending contract. Thus, the PF Financial Institution asserts that the above resolution is all implemented.

However, creditor financial institutions have resolved to provide funding for the winding industry to facilitate the distribution of funds necessary for the completion of the business, so long as the above plaintiffs failed to provide funding in violation of the resolution of the fourth council, and thereby they completed the business by voluntarily procuring construction costs that fall short of winding industry, they cannot be deemed to have complied with the resolution of the council solely on the ground that the relevant business is completed.

5) Whether the principal creditor bank of the Plaintiff Korean Bank violated the fiduciary duty as the principal creditor bank

A) Violation of fiduciary duty to enforce new credit extension funds in accordance with a resolution of the Council.

(1) Defendant Campco’s assertion

The 4th Council held that PF business places are under the responsibility of PF dealing agencies, and separately decided to provide new financing of KRW 110 billion in order to provide support for the operation of PP forest industry. As such, the Plaintiff bank, as the principal creditor bank, has the duty of care to supervise and control the new financing of the PF business places in order to use the new financing of the PF business as the fund for the operation of PF business. However, the Plaintiff bank, as the principal creditor bank, has neglected to ensure that most new financing is used for various bills settlement related to PF business places, rather than the operating fund, and neglected to supervise whether the new financing of KRW 110 billion has been appropriately executed, thereby resulting in the nonperformance of PP industry.

(2) Determination

If Eul added the purport of the entire argument in the statement of 60 evidence, it is recognized that the sum of the bill payment amount from August 2, 201 to February 2, 2012, from August 2012, 201, the sum of the bill payment amounting to KRW 3,285.10,000 to KRW 1,04.9 billion in the bill payment place, Incheon Cheong-gu's place of business, Incheon Cheong-gu's place of business (Chapter 629.8 billion in Daejeon's place of business, KRW 298.5 billion in the Incheon Cheong-gu's place of business, KRW 120.6 billion in the actual place of business) is KRW 1,04.9 billion.

However, considering Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 2-2-9, Gap evidence 23, Eul or Eul evidence 3's overall purport of arguments, i.e., ○ Operation Fund means the following circumstances, which generally include interest on loans to banks including settlement of bills against subcontractor companies, payment of principal of corporate bonds, field funds (on-site wages, unpaid amounts, etc.), development interest, provisional seizure deposits, and rents, etc. The ○ PP Industry Operation Fund is supported so that it does not go against the payment bill issued to subcontractor companies due to lack of funds, or its business suspension due to non-payment of principal funds. It is naturally possible for Korean creditor financial institutions to use new funds for the purpose of financing new funds from 200 KFFF to 200 out of the new bill financing plan. It is also possible for Korean creditor financial institutions to use new funds for the purpose of financing new funds from 200 KFFFFF to 200 out of the new bill financing plan. It is also possible for Korean financial institutions to use new funds for the purpose of financing new funds borrowed funds from 20.

(B) repayment of KRW 2.7 billion out of KRW 1,100;

(1) Defendant Campco’s assertion

Of the KRW 10 billion newly provided by the Plaintiff Bank, the repayment of KRW 2.7 billion was made preferentially by means of deposit offsetting, which is in violation of the fiduciary duty of the principal creditor bank, as the principal creditor bank has received preferential reimbursement of the funds to be fairly allocated among the creditors group, and thus violates the fiduciary duty of the principal creditor bank.

(2) Determination

According to the evidence Nos. 22-1, 9, 33, and 9, 21 of the evidence, although the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (Korea Trade Insurance Corporation) exercised its claim right against the resolution of the fourth council, the Plaintiff Bank (Korea Trade Insurance Corporation) paid approximately KRW 31.3.3 billion for Pung forest industry by providing financial institutions with new funds, including the amount to be borne by the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (Korea Trade Insurance Corporation), and the Korea Exchange Bank did not pay approximately KRW 4.0.8 billion for the portion to be borne by the Korea Exchange Bank (Korea Exchange Bank) upon exercising its claim right to purchase, but the Plaintiff Bank was refunded KRW 27.2.5 billion, the difference, which was refunded from Pung forest industry, in the form of deposit set-off, and then distributed it on May 11, 2012, in accordance with the ratio of the amount of new funds by creditor financial institutions of the first financial right, and thus, the Plaintiff Bank was preferentially repaid by the said Plaintiff Bank.

C) New financial assistance with the recognition of a default event

(1) Defendant Campco’s assertion

In February 2012, the Plaintiff bank was aware of the fact that the financial burden of the winding industry was imminent due to the end of 2011, and the Plaintiff bank incurred additional loss to the bond group by forceing new financial support around February 2012.

(2) Determination

According to the evidence Eul's evidence No. 54, the Palim industry sought an extension of maturity due to the shortage of funds when the Palim Capital requested the payment of a bill, and such circumstances were found to have been known by the fund management body, but it is difficult to view that the plaintiff bank caused additional losses due to the plaintiff bank's failure to provide new financial support even though it knows that the Palim industry was imminent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The above assertion by the defendant Caul is without merit.

D) Violation of the duty to supervise the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the Plaintiff National Bank to faithfully implement its resolution of the 3 and 4th Council

(1) Defendant Campco’s assertion

As the principal creditor bank, the Plaintiff Bank is obligated to check whether the PF dealing agencies, such as the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank, are implementing the resolution of the Council, and if not implementing the resolution, it has the obligation to take measures to implement the resolution. The Plaintiff Bank violated the duty of care by neglecting it, even though it was well aware that the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank were not implementing the matters resolved by the Council 3 and 4, by continuously identifying the financial flow of the wind industry and the implementation status of the resolution of each creditor financial institution through the Fund Management Agency.

(2) Determination

If Eul added the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 13, 14, 21, 22 and Eul evidence Nos. 13, 22, and 2, the council of creditor financial institutions may take measures at the time of failure of the resolution by the council of creditor financial institutions, such as reservation of interest payment, exemption from the repayment of claims through the distribution of surplus funds, etc., until the resolution by the council of creditor financial institutions is implemented, and the principal creditor bank may separately impose penalty or liability for damages. The ○ Pung Forest Industry shall report to the head of the fund management body every month the deposit, withdrawal of payment, bill, check, issuance and seal impression, the current status of implementation of self-help plans, etc. under the approval of the council of funds management dispatched by the council. The head of the fund management body and the deputy head of the fund management body are both employees of the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff bank, the national bank, and the non-performance of the resolution by the council of creditor financial institutions from March 2012.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, Gap 24 and 25's respective arguments as a whole, namely, new loans for construction cost related to the PF workplace are implemented within the maximum construction cost, not prior to the extension of new funds to the extent of maximum construction cost. New loans for 110 billion won under the 4th council's new funds support plan was made upon the request for funding industry, and the total amount of new loans was completed on February 22, 2012. The 00 plaintiff bank still has insufficient operating funds for the PF industry despite the completion of new loans. On March 29, 2012, the creditor financial institution's Steering Committee discussed the fiveth agenda of the agreement between the creditor financial institution and the plaintiff bank's national bank's implementation of the plan to provide funds to the creditor banks for the implementation of the plan to provide funds for construction cost loan to the creditor banks on April 17, 2012. The creditor financial institution's resolution to grant funds to the creditor banks' creditor banks' meeting should not be held under Article 9 (1) of the Agreement.

E) The increase in the financial burden of the winding industry by actively leading the conclusion of the amendment agreement on financial conditions.

(1) Defendant Campco’s assertion

On September 201, the relevant lender entered into an agreement on the change of financial conditions with respect to the business place of Seobongdong, Daejeon. The remaining lender except the Plaintiff bank did not bear the obligation to provide new funds while applying 4% interest without reduction or exemption of interest rates. This agreement itself violates the Council’s resolution. The Plaintiff bank, despite being aware of such fact, led the conclusion of the agreement and thereby violated the fiduciary duty as the principal creditor bank by increasing the financial burden of the Pung Forest industry.

(2) Determination

According to Gap 2, 31, 32 evidence, Eul's 23 evidence, and Eul or 3 evidence, the council's 4th PF disposal plan only determines that the interest will be received at a normal rate by applying 4% per annum to adjust the financial conditions of the PF loan for normal place of business; 00 also, with the intention to provide new funds (loans) within the maximum construction cost to reduce the amount of 4% or less for the normal progress of the business, or with the intention to reduce the interest rate of the PF loan to replace the loan with the interest rate of 1% at the Daejeon-dong business site. According to the reasoning that the new financing business entity's 4th revision rate for the PF lending was not applied to the above new financing business entity's 4th new financing business entity's 4th new financing business entity's 4th new financing business entity's 19% new financing business entity's 19% new financing business entity's 4% new financing business entity's 94% new financing business entity's new financing plan.

6) Whether there exists a causal relationship between the violation of resolution by the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank, the National Bank, the third and fourth Council and the default on the payment for the winding industry

The Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank did not implement new loans for the construction cost within the maximum amount of construction cost, despite the continuous increase in the amounts of the accounts receivable for the construction industry, and did not execute new loans for the construction cost within the scope of the estimated construction cost, as well as the violation of the resolution of the Council 3 and 4 by receiving the repayment of the principal of the PF loans from Han Construction, which has continued to be implemented even after the fourth Council. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to the respective statements in Gap or 6, 9, 10, 11, 14 through 17, 17, and 22, it is difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the violation of the resolution of the Council and the default of the PF loans industry, and the default of the PF loans industry.

Therefore, the workout procedure of this case is terminated when the wind industry becomes insolvent due to the violation of the resolution of the council of the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank of Korea. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants suffered considerable loss from the loss apportionment. Thus, the Defendants’ offset claim based on the damage claim against the above Plaintiffs and Defendant Campco’s counterclaim claim are without merit.

A) On May 15, 2009, after the third council, the one-time construction and winding industry shared the sales promotion expenses of unsold officetels, the expenses for modifying the indoor nitrote design and M/H renovation expenses for the promotion of sale, and the expenses for selling the term, and the expenses related to the sale in lots in the officetels for the promotion of sale. Once the sales revenue management account was paid in advance and the portion to be borne by the winding industry was agreed to be reduced from the contract amount at the time of the balance settlement. On September 23, 201, the fourth council, after the fourth council, the share of the occupancy agency fees, the expenses for promoting occupancy, the expenses for discount, and the sales loss incurred by the sale in lots, 50:50, excluding the sales loss incurred by the discount of sale in lots, the sales agency fees, the sales promotion expenses and the sales promotion expenses shall be borne by the winding industry, and each of the said expenses shall be reduced from the contract amount at the time of settlement.

On June 2012, after the decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures, the Japanese construction and wind industry established KRW 160,748,198,535, which was the first contract amount of the construction project at KRW 236,30,00,000,00, and KRW 15,119,092,840, which was calculated by deducting the adjusted payment amount of additional charges under the agreement with the Japanese Construction as above KRW 60,432,708,625, and KRW 15,19,092,840 as the final contract price. As such, considering that the wind industry did not actively secure the outstanding amount of the construction project from Japanese construction in relation to the Incheon Metropolitan Government's business, it is difficult to view that it did not have an obligation to pay new construction price at KRW 34,60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won,0 won,00.

B) The Pung Forest Industry had not been paid due to the rapid aggravation of apartment prices due to the overall depression of the construction industry, the sales performance low tide (Seoul District Court Decision 74.8%, Incheon District Court Decision 79.4%, etc.), and the cancellation of sales contracts already concluded, which led to the rapid aggravation of its profitability. Accordingly, Pung Forest Industry had not been paid due to cash inflows. The total liabilities at the time of application for rehabilitation procedures commencement on May 10, 2012 were KRW 2,487,721,245,00, total assets were KRW 534,368,075,000, KRW 1,953,353,171,000, KRW 1,223,483,800,000, KRW 264,264,2374,242,000, KRW 20006, KRW 1665,000,000,000.

As such, the Pung Forest Industry was unable to pay KRW 43.2 billion on April 30, 2012 with the maturity of the Pung Forest Industry, and the Pung Forest Industry was insolvent. This is difficult to readily conclude that even if the Plaintiffs were to implement a new loan of construction price in Pung Forest Industry according to the PF treatment plan of the 3th Council and the 4th Council, even if the Plaintiffs were to have prevented default due to the shortage of funds for the Pung Forest Industry, even if the Pung Forest Industry’s maximum new loan of construction price was resolved by the Council, which is 15,119,092,840,3 and 4th Council, and the maximum new loan amount of construction price is KRW 34 billion, or 36 billion.

On the other hand, in the rehabilitation procedure of Seoul Central District Court 2012 Ma72, the winding industry paid KRW 16.1 billion in accordance with the rehabilitation plan in the year 2012 and received a decision to terminate the rehabilitation procedure. However, the rehabilitation plan for the winding industry is the rehabilitation plan for the winding industry at 76% of the rehabilitation claims at the rate of 10:1 after conversion of investment, and the remaining 24% of the rehabilitation claims are the contents of installment payments for 10 years, which reduces a considerable amount of the obligations of the winding industry. In light of the fact that the winding industry repaid KRW 16.1 billion in accordance with the rehabilitation plan in the year 2012, it cannot be deemed that the winding industry could be exempted from the insolvency if it was due to the claim of Defendant Campco, or that the winding industry was under the condition that it was merely temporarily aggravated.

C) Furthermore, the Plaintiff Nonghyup Bank and the National Bank received reimbursement of the PF loan principal only from Japan Construction Co., Ltd., the executor company in relation to the business place of Incheon Cheongbu, from October 12, 201. After that, the balance of the sales revenue account (the name of a deposit holder: daily construction, account number: account number omitted) is gradually increasing, and the balance on April 30, 2012 is much above the actual construction amount in the wind industry or the maximum construction cost amount as set forth in the 44,47,711,675 won, which much exceeds the expected construction cost as set forth in the 44,47,711,675 won in the 44,47,675 won in the FF processing area. In this respect, even if the above Plaintiffs were to make a new loan for the construction cost in accordance with the resolution of the 3 and 4th Council, it cannot be readily concluded that the outstanding construction cost would have been paid in the wind industry.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all claims of the plaintiff us bank, the new bank, the Daegu bank, the Gwangju bank, and the Han Bank are accepted on the grounds of their reasoning. The claims of the plaintiff us Bank, the defendant ccco, the defendant cco, the defendant cco, the plaintiff cco, the defendant cco, the defendant cco, the defendant cco, the plaintiff cco, the defendant cco, the defendant cco, the plaintiff cco, the defendant cco, the plaintiff cco, the defendant cco, the defendant cco, and the defendant cco, the plaintiff cco, the plaintiff cco, the defendant cco, the plaintiff cco, the defendant cco, the plaintiff cco, the plaintiff cco, the defendant cco, the defendant cco, and all of the counter claims added at the trial. The plaintiff cco, the plaintiff cco, the plaintiff cco, and the plaintiff cco, the plaintiff cco, the defendant cco, was accepted

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)

심급 사건

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.7.12.선고 2012가합75432

서울고등법원 2016.8.12.선고 2013나51119(본소), 2013나72017(반소)

-대법원 2019.4.3.선고 2016다40910

원심판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2013. 7. 12. 선고 2012가합75432 판결

본문참조판례

-대법원 2015. 12. 23. 선고 2014다222343 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2012회합72

-서울중앙지방법원은 2012. 5. 10. 풍림산업에 대하여 2012회합72호로 회생절차 개시결정

-헌법재판소 2001. 6. 28. 2001헌마132 전원재판부 결정