In cases where business administration is commenced as an order to manage business and assets of a mutual savings and finance company under the former Credit Management Fund Act and the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, whether it is illegal for a custodian to receive assistance from an accounting firm to which he/she belongs when investigating the current status of assets of a mutual savings and finance company (negative), and whether prior consent of a representative director of a credit cooperative or a general meeting of shareholders shall be obtained in cases where

Articles 30-2 through 30-5, 30-8 through 30-13, and 30-17 of the former Credit Management Fund Act (amended by Act No. 5050 of Dec. 29, 1995 and repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Mutual Saving and Finance Act, Act No. 5501 of Jan. 13, 1998), and Articles 23-11 and 24(2) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Act (amended by Act No. 5501 of Jan. 13, 1998), if a manager of a mutual savings and finance company (hereinafter referred to as the "mutual savings and finance company") commences an order for business management and transfer of property without delay, the manager of a mutual savings and finance company shall have the authority to investigate the current status of property of a mutual savings and finance company (hereinafter referred to as the "actual director of a mutual savings and finance company") if it is deemed that the manager of a mutual savings and finance company is not subject to prior approval for transfer of trust.

Articles 30-2 (see current Article 24-2 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 30-3 (see current Article 24-3 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 30-4 (see current Article 24-4 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 30-5 (see current Article 24-5 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 30-8 (see current Article 24-8 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 30-9 (see current Article 24-9 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 30-10 (see current Article 30-10 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 30-10 (see current Article 30-10 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 30-10 (see current Article 30-10 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 30-11 (see current Article 24-13 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act), 230-14 (see current Article 3130-2 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act)

Cho Ho-Hy Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Special Representative Formation Dong) and two others

Financial Supervisory Commission (former: President of Credit Management Fund and Minister of Finance and Economy) (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant)

Cho Ho Mutual Savings and Finance Company and one other (Attorney Lee Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu25974 delivered on August 19, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Minister of Finance and Economy's business guidance order issued against the Plaintiff's credit cooperative on November 4, 1994 pursuant to Article 30-2 (1) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 5050 of Dec. 29, 1995) shall be based on the provision that "the Minister of Finance and Economy may issue other necessary orders when it is deemed that the financial status of the mutual savings and finance company might be harmed to the public interest because the financial status of the mutual savings and finance company is not sound."

2. On the third and fifth grounds for appeal

According to the provisions of Articles 30-2 through 30-5, 30-8 through 30-13, and 30-17 of the Act and the provisions of Articles 23-11 (1) and 24 (2) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 5501 of Jan. 13, 1998), when the management of a credit cooperative (hereinafter referred to as "mutual savings and finance company") commences under an order to manage its business and assets (hereinafter referred to as "management order"), the administrator shall investigate the current status of assets of the credit cooperative (hereinafter referred to as "property inspection") without delay; from the time when the management order has been announced, the administrator shall suspend the execution of the duties of the credit cooperative; the administrator shall have the authority to manage and dispose of its assets; the President of the Credit Management Fund vicariously entrusted by the Minister of Finance and Economy (hereinafter referred to as the "president") shall, if he deems it desirable to permit the transfer of all assets of the credit cooperative; the Minister of Finance and Economy shall request the credit cooperative to dissolve or transfer its assets;

Therefore, there is no reason to view that the administrator's act of realizing property has the assistance of the accounting firm to which he/she belongs as illegal, and the contract transfer agreement upon a request for contract transfer is within the manager's right of business execution, and there is no limit to obtain prior consent from the representative director of the credit cooperative or the general meeting of shareholders.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant provisions and records, the court below's decision is justified in accordance with the above legal principles, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to property real directors, right holder upon a request for transfer, decision for transfer, decision for transfer, and revocation of business authorization, since the joint administrator of the plaintiff's credit cooperative can not fully repay its obligations with the assets of the plaintiff credit cooperative, and the administrator requested transfer of contracts on behalf of the plaintiff credit cooperative, and the defendant's auxiliary intervenor requested a special resolution at the general meeting of shareholders of the plaintiff credit cooperative on behalf of the plaintiff credit cooperative, but the resolution was not reached because the majority of shareholders did not go against the resolution. Thus, the chief director decided to transfer the whole contract and appoint a liquidator accordingly, and the Minister of Finance and Economy's decision to revoke business authorization on the ground that it constitutes a case where the public interest is harmed due to the lack of the financial status or management of the plaintiff's credit cooperative. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

3. On the second ground for appeal

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in accordance with the relevant statutes and the records, the court below is justified to determine the criteria by proposing the acquisition of a company, which is not a business continuation for the plaintiff's treasury but a small credit loan. Accordingly, in determining whether the non-performing loans are non-performing loans, it shall be classified as non-performing loans only if the debtor and joint guarantor have the ability to repay at least 10 times a month among the loans which are paid at least 30 days from the last payment date of the due date of the due diligence, and the loans which are paid at least 30 times a month from the last payment date of the due diligence. In other cases, the decision of non-performing loans shall be classified as non-performing loans, but in consideration of the debtor and joint guarantor's ability to repay and the measures to preserve the claims, etc.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the management order of this case was dismissed, the court below determined that the illegality of the preceding act cannot be asserted in the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the decision on contract transfer, etc., which is the subsequent act, as long as the judgment was dismissed by Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu20668 delivered on December 5, 196, and the management order, which is the preceding act, becomes final and conclusive as lawful.

According to the records, while the former representative director of the plaintiff's treasury filed an administrative appeal seeking cancellation of the order of this case on June 11, 1996 on behalf of the plaintiff's treasury, he was subject to the dismissal ruling on June 11, 1996, the administrative litigation was filed, but the former representative director appointed an attorney on behalf of the plaintiff's treasury and filed an administrative lawsuit on May 15, 1997 by the Seoul High Court, which was illegal, which was dismissed by a person without the power of representation. On December 12, 1997, the dismissal of the appeal became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court Decision 97Nu10284 Decided December 12, 197. On the other hand, the plaintiff's treasury, 2, and 3 did not have a legitimate authority of dismissal of the plaintiff's standing to sue by the court below on the ground that the plaintiff's ruling of this case was not a final and conclusive one of the plaintiff's own interests, but it was not a final and conclusive one of the plaintiff's own interests.

However, according to the records, the chief director orders the plaintiff's treasury to manage the reasons that illegal and non-performing loans are likely to cause capital erosion and it is difficult to promote business normalization with its own ability, and the actual asset of the property is not able to fully repay its obligations, but the transfer of contracts is deemed desirable, rather than bankruptcy, and it is clear that the transfer of contracts is not made, and it is legitimate to cancel the business license and appoint a liquidator as a liquidator, since it is not necessary to maintain the financial status or management of the plaintiff's treasury, and the transfer of contracts is not made.

Ultimately, the above error of the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal is without merit.

5. On the sixth ground for appeal

The management order, decision on contract transfer, revocation of business authorization, etc. of this case shall undergo the hearing procedures under Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act as an administrative disposition imposing a burden on the people. The court below's failure to determine this is alleged to be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, etc., but the Administrative Procedures Act was enforced from January 1, 1998, and it is not applicable to the decision on contract transfer, revocation of business authorization, appointment of liquidator, etc. of this case, and thus, the argument in the

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)