Seoul Mutual Savings Bank’s bankruptcy trustee (Law Firm Grandmark, Attorneys Yoon Gyeong-chul et al., Counsel for the bankruptcy trustee-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorneys Ko Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

December 8, 2015 (Defendant 2, Defendant 3)

January 14, 2016 (Defendant 1)

January 28, 2016 (Defendant 4)

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 1 (the first instance court: Nonparty 1) is KRW 3,473,400,000 and its related thereto from February 4, 2014;

B. Defendant 2: (a) from August 23, 2013, 519,000 won and its related thereto:

C. Defendant 4: (a) from August 22, 2013, 54,000 won and its related thereto

By February 16, 2016, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be paid.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant 1, 2, and 4 and the defendant 3 (the original trial: defendant 3) are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 of the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 are the Plaintiff, the remainder is the Plaintiff, and 1/5 of the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 4 are the Plaintiff, the remainder is the Plaintiff, and the remainder is the Defendant 4. The part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 3 is the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff 7,100,000 won; Defendant 2 shall be 900,000,000 won; Defendant 3 shall be 500,000,000 won; Defendant 4 shall be 300,000,000 won; and each of the above amounts shall be 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The bankrupt Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) was a juristic person established under the Mutual Savings Banks Act for the purpose of credit fraternity business, credit installment savings business, etc., and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee on September 26, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap139.

B. The Defendants, as managers of the Seoul Savings Bank, are the following:

Defendant 1’s tenure of office, Defendant 2’s representative director, from April 6, 2007 to January 15, 2008, from March 29, 2011 to February 21, 2012, from November 26, 1999 to August 4, 2005, Defendant 4’s director from August 28, 2008 to September 3, 201.

C. Relevant provisions

1) Loan-related provisions

Pursuant to Article 12 of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20653, Jul. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20653, Jul. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply), no mutual savings bank may extend credit to any individual borrower in excess of 20/100 of its equity capital, and if a mutual savings bank exceeds the said credit limit, it shall comply with the limits

In addition, in accordance with Article 2 of the Regulations on Supervision of Business Affairs of a mutual savings bank, Article 2 of the Standard Operating Manual of a mutual savings bank, and Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, and 27 of the Standard Loan Regulations, a mutual savings bank shall maintain the soundness and profitability of loans in handling loans, taking into account the credit standing and repayment ability of a borrower, the use of the funds, etc., and may treat collateral as credit for a person deemed not to impede recovery of claims by comprehensively examining the feasibility, profitability, assets, credit standing, etc. of a debtor, and shall establish a joint guarantor except for loans within the scope of collateral, and shall investigate the actual status of assets, credit, and business of a debtor and a guarantor.

2) Provisions pertaining to the acquisition of real estate inflows.

A mutual savings bank may acquire non-business real estate only in extenuating circumstances, such as the recovery of non-performing loans, in accordance with Article 18-2 of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act, Article 24 of the Regulations on Payment in Arrears and Loans in Arrears, and the guidance guidelines for the Financial Supervisory Service, and shall not make the acquisition of a security by inflow or acquisition at a price excessively higher than the market price with a view to concealing the decline and loss in

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's entry in the evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant 1;

(a) Liability for damages in excess of the limit on credit extension for individual borrowers;

1) Facts of recognition

A) Unfair loans extended to Kenya Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Kenya”)

(1) On July 27, 2007, Seoul Savings Bank extended credit loans of 5 billion won to the Kenyak-Ak-knives of 2007. However, the actual borrower of the above loan was Nonparty 11, who was a nominal owner of the Kenyak-knives of knives of knives of knives of knives of knives of knives of kives of kives of kives of kives

(2) At the time of the loan, the actual review of the business prospects, the possibility of collecting claims, etc., or the project implementation data, etc. were not attached to the above loan through the analysis of the financial status of the Kenyan

(3) The above loan was made on credit without any security, and there was no investigation on the income and property of the representative director of the Kenyakic Investment representative, the joint and several surety of the above loan, for Nonparty 12. Meanwhile, the Kenyakic Investment discontinued discontinued on September 28, 2007, immediately after the above loan.

(4) Of the above loans, KRW 3.5 billion has not been repaid.

(5) On July 27, 2007, Defendant 1, as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, approved the proposal of the Credit Review Board on the said loan in writing.

(6) At the time of the above loan, the Seoul Savings Bank provided loans under the name of the said Company as security from Sung-nam-si ( Address 1 omitted) to 3,278.7 square meters (hereinafter “Ssung-Nam Real Estate”). If the remainder of the collateral amount, excluding the pertinent loan amount, is distributed proportionally according to the balance of each borrowed loan, the collateral value for the Kenya-Skyl Investment is KRW 2,658,00,000,000.

B) Unfair note 2) Loans to Nonparty 5

(1) The Seoul Savings Bank extended a loan of KRW 4 billion on April 30, 2007 to Nonparty 5, and KRW 2.5 billion on September 17, 2007, respectively.

(2) At the time of the above loan, Nonparty 5, an individual entrepreneur conducting real estate business, did not investigate the debt repayment ability of Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 5 discontinued on April 28, 2008.

(3) At the time of the above land, the officially announced value was KRW 209,000,000,000, which was KRW 4.222,813 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “Cheongju Forest”) in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, which is a collateral for the foregoing loan approval. However, at the time of the above land, the SDR club Co., Ltd, which is a joint guarantor of the above loan, was in a state of uncertainty of the ability to perform the guaranteed obligation in the form of partial capital worth KRW 58,00,000,000.

(4) The loan was not repaid, and the collateral value of the Cheongju Forest is KRW 950,00,000.

(5) On April 11, 2007, August 27, 2007, Defendant 1, as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, approved each of the above loans in his own discretion.

C) Unfair loans to Maroassco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Maroasscocon”)

(1) On July 31, 2007, Seoul Savings Bank granted a loan of KRW 3.5 billion to Mamo-ro containers. The actual borrower of the loan was a nominal borrower in the case of Mamo-ro, a corporation in which Nonparty 15 is actually a company in which Mamo-ro, a company in which Mamo-ro (hereinafter “Mamo-ro”) was actually a company in which Mamo-ro, and a Mamo-ro had already exceeded the limit of loans to the same person at the time of the loan.

(2) Mali-ro Agency was 949% debt ratio in 2006, and was a capital partial diving at the time of the loan.

(3) At the time of the above loan, the market price of the forest and 3 lots, other than the forest and 3 lots (hereinafter “afforest and 3 lots”) offered as security, was 2.4 billion won.

(4) On July 26, 2007, Defendant 1, as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, approved the proposal of the Credit Review Board on the said loan in writing. The said loan was not repaid until now.

D) Unfair loans to Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “unfaith”)

(1) On December 17, 2007, Seoul Savings Bank loaned KRW 5 billion to Tae-Mayman on December 17, 2007. The actual borrower of the above loan was a nominal borrower with his own will. The actual borrower was a nominal borrower with his own will, and the loan limit was exceeded by the same person at the time of the above loan.

(2) At the time of the above loan, the draft review report, etc. states that the appraisal was offered as a collateral the land located in the legal principle of Eup in the court of Pakistan, which is the cause of 812,795,000, but the actual land was not offered as a collateral, and there was no investigation as to the income and property of the non-party 16 representative director, who is the joint and several surety.

(3) On December 12, 2007, Defendant 1, as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, approved the proposal of the Credit Review Board on the said loan in writing.

(4) Of the above loans, KRW 4,086,00,000 has not been repaid.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1 through 19, Gap evidence 6-1 through 24, Gap evidence 7-1 through 15, Gap evidence 8-1 through 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Occurrence of damages liability

According to the above facts, loans extended to the Kenya U.S. U.S. P., non-party 5, Maro-Massacon, and Mano-Masacon violated the limit of individual borrower credit extended to the borrower under the mutual savings bank law and relevant regulations, or neglected to investigate the credit of the borrower, and only joint and several sureties who are not formally able to repay debts without obtaining any security, shall be deemed illegal and unfair loans which have been neglected to take measures for the preservation of claims. Defendant 1 who approved each of the above loans illegally and unreasonably as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank shall be liable for the damages suffered by the Seoul Savings Bank pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial

3) Determination as to Defendant 1’s assertion

Defendant 1 asserts that the loans to the Kenya U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S.S., 5, Maro-Maros-Contac, and Mano-Maocon had already been extended in excess of the limit on waterability and administered, and that there was no possibility of repayment of overdue loans, Defendant 1 did so so to minimize the damages to the Seoul Savings Bank. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a new loss to the Plaintiff as it constitutes a large exchange loan, and Defendant 1 did not violate the duty of care.

In full view of each of the above acknowledged evidence and evidence as above and evidence No. 12, prior to the appointment of the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, Defendant 1 had already been in excess of the credit limit of each individual borrower (10 billion won) and it was difficult for Defendant 1 to repay debts due to lack of security. Nonparty 17 requested temporary loans to the Japanese Mutual Savings Bank in order to conceal the excess of the credit limit of the same person as the auditor of the Financial Supervisory Service anticipated, and received loans of KRW 2.3 billion on February 21, 2007. Defendant 1 had Defendant 1 repaid the existing loans of KRW 1.2 billion out of the loans of the Kenya-U.S. Savings Bank as the representative director after taking office as the representative director. Defendant 1 did not have any possibility of maintaining the credit and loan of KRW 4 billion, but it did not have any possibility that the above loans were in excess of the above existing legal terms and conditions, nor did it be viewed that each of the above loans continued to exist.

4) Scope of liability for damages

A) Loans to Kenyan U.S.C.

The amount of damages suffered by the Seoul Savings Bank due to a loan to the Kenyak U.S. Investment is KRW 842,00,000,000, except for the amount of KRW 2,658,000,000, which is the collateral value for the above loan to the real borrower of the above loan provided as collateral by the plaintiff himself from the remaining principal and interest of the loan amount of KRW 3.5 billion.

B) Loans to Nonparty 5

The amount of damages suffered by the Seoul Savings Bank from a loan to Nonparty 5 is KRW 5,50,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 950,000,000, which the Plaintiff deducted from the remainder of the above loan to KRW 6 billion.

(c)loan to Mali-ros-containers;

The amount of damages suffered by the Seoul Savings Bank due to its loans to investment-in-mixed containers is KRW 1,100,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 2,400,000,000, which the Plaintiff deducts himself from the remaining principal and interest of the above loans of KRW 3.5 billion.

D) Loans to Mano-faithers

The amount of damages suffered by the Seoul Savings Bank due to the loan of the said loan is KRW 4,086,00,000, which is the remaining principal and interest of the said loan.

5) Limitation on liability for damages

However, at the time of Defendant 1’s appointment as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, the Seoul Savings Bank was in a very poor condition. Defendant 1 made considerable efforts to normalize the financial status and management of the Seoul Savings Bank, and resigned about 90,000 won, Defendant 1 made each of the above loans to the effect that Defendant 1 did not have any personal benefits from the above loans; Defendant 1 did not have any personal benefits from the above loans; Defendant 1’s decision-making process in the Seoul Savings Bank; Defendant 1’s role in the extension review committee; Defendant 1’s involvement in the above loans; and structural problems such as the process of performing duties such as formal loan review or audit procedures inside the Seoul Savings Bank, etc. were also the causes of damages. In addition, Defendant 1’s liability for damages is limited to 30%, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case.

6) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant 1 is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 11,578,00,00 for damages incurred from loans extended by the Seoul Savings Bank in excess of the limit of individual borrowers and credit investigation and credit preservation measures (= KRW 842,00,000 for loans extended to the Kenyan Investment + KRW 5,550,000 for damages related to loans extended to Nonparty 5 + KRW 1,100,000 for damages related to loans extended to the Austrian Investment Cooperative + KRW 4,086,00,000 for damages related to loans extended to bad faith 4,473,40,000 for loans extended to the Plaintiff by 30% from the following day of the above tort until February 4, 2014 to the date of performance of the obligation to pay the Plaintiff 15% of the annual damages related to loans extended to the Defendant 1,550,000,000 per annumn Investment.

B. Whether liability for damages relating to the PF loan is established

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1 neglected to conduct credit investigations, neglected to take measures for preserving claims, and caused damages to the Seoul Savings Bank due to its representative director’s breach of his duty of care, such as neglecting to examine the feasibility of the project, on each loan extended to the D&D Holdings (hereinafter referred to as “D&D”), one U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BD”) and the UN BBT (hereinafter referred to as “NB”), and neglecting to examine the feasibility of the project.

2) Relevant legal principles

The executive officers and employees of a financial institution are obliged to perform the duty of due care as a good manager to the financial institution to which they belong, and thus they must faithfully perform the duty of care. However, if a financial institution claims liability for damages due to nonperformance against its executive officers and employees on the ground of its failure to perform the duty of care related to the loan, even if the loan made by its executive officers and employees is difficult to recover or collect as a result, it cannot be concluded that the judgment of the executive officers and employees who issued the loan decision is in breach of the duty of due care or duty of due care as a good manager. If the business judgment related to the loan was conducted as a loan examination in good faith for the maximum interest of the company in accordance with appropriate procedures with reasonable information, it shall be deemed that the business judgment of its executive officers and employees is within the permissible scope of discretion, and it shall be deemed that the financial institution fulfilled the duty of due care or due care as a good manager for the company, and even if the loan made by its executive officers and employees was made difficult to recover or collect as a result, it shall not be deemed that it violated the above duty of due care and 20.

The so-called project financing (PF) loan is a financial transaction that evaluates the feasibility of a specific project related to real estate development and makes the future cash flow generated from the project as the main source of repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. As such, the determination on the loan repayment ability is mainly dependent on the evaluation of the feasibility of the project. In such a case, a director of a financial institution has sufficiently collected, investigated, and examined necessary information while examining the project feasibility as a requirement for the loan, and issued a reasonable decision in accordance with the trust and good faith of the financial institution on the basis of such procedures that it conforms with the maximum interest of the financial institution and that it is within the scope of ordinary selection as a director for the reason that the contents are not considerably unreasonable, the director cannot be held liable for damages to the company even if the result was incurred later. However, if a director of a financial institution causes damages to the company unilaterally under the general and abstract expectation that it will merely benefit in the business of the company, it shall not be deemed that the director’s act of collecting and investigating the necessary information and it conforms with the maximum interest of the company, and shall not be deemed within 1010.

3) Determination as to loans to D&D Holdings

A) According to the statements in Gap evidence 4-3, Gap evidence 9-1 through 3, and Gap evidence 9-5 through 8, the following facts are recognized:

(1) On May 3, 2007, Seoul Savings Bank loaned KRW 2.1 billion to D&D Holdings. The loan was made by means of a PF loan to purchase the site of the golf course development project located in the Gongju-si, Gongju-si (hereinafter “instant golf course project”). Defendant 1, as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, approved on April 18, 2007, as a written resolution of the Credit Review Board on the said loan.

(2) D&D Holdings was a corporation established for the purpose of the Housing Construction and Sales Business on August 29, 2002, and 2006 sales amounting to KRW 88,126,00,000 for net income, KRW 10,907,000 for net income, but the debt ratio was 410%.

(3) The Gi-Jae Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gi-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Ja-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-P

(4) The purchase rate of the project site related to the above loan was 3.3%, the project was suspended due to the failure to secure the project site, the failure to select the project site, and the failure to approve the project, and the Seoul Savings Bank failed to recover the loan.

B) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, evidence No. 9-4 and evidence No. 9-9 and evidence No. 16, it is difficult to deem that Defendant 1 violated the fiduciary duty or fiduciary duty as an executive officer dealing with PF loans in the process of the above loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) The above lending is the hubd loan (bredo loan and loan repaid through this PF loan) which is a land purchase fund loan premised on the development of a golf course. This is a form of a representative PF loan handled by a mutual savings bank, a second financial right, and a financial transaction that evaluates the feasibility of a specific project related to real estate development and makes a future cash flow that may arise from the relevant project as the main source of repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. Thus, in determining the ability to repay such PF loan, the evaluation of the feasibility of the relevant real estate development project is a significant proportion in assessing the ability to repay the relevant PF loan, and only physical and human collateral cannot be said to be a method of collecting the loan.

(2) 위 대출에 대한 담보로 서울저축은행은 디앤디홀딩스가 위 대출금으로 매입하는 공주시 (주소 6 생략)외 65필지(이 사건 골프장 사업부지 중 일부이다)에 근저당권을 설정하는 한편, 디앤디홀딩스가 시행한 ◆◆ ◆◆◆◆ ★★★★★★ 아파트 분양 수입금 160억 원에 대한 채권을 양도받았고, 당시 위 아파트 사업은 분양이 완료되어 입주가 진행중이었다.

(3) 디앤디홀딩스는 2005년 61억 원, 2006년 109억 원 상당의 순이익을 실현해왔고, 그리심은 당시 천안시 ▼▼동에 총매출액 612,412,000,000원이 예상되는 1,759세대 ★★★★★★아파트 건축사업을 시행하고 있었다.

(4) The golf course project of this case was selected and carried out as a construction project by the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”)., and the project failed due to the lack of loans from financial institutions due to the legal management.

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine the remainder of the issue.

4) Determination as to loans to Han Mandon L&C

A) According to the descriptions of Gap evidence 4-6 and Gap evidence 10-1 through 15, the following facts are recognized:

(1) The Han Mandon C&C is a company with capital of KRW 5 billion established for the purpose of a PF project for the construction of a main complex building, shopping complex building, other auxiliary facilities, etc. in the Southern-gu, Incheon ( Address 7 omitted) area (hereinafter “instant area”).

(2) On August 14, 2007, the Seoul Savings Bank loaned KRW 6 billion in relation to the above business to Handon S&C by means of PF loan. Defendant 1 as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, and Defendant 4 as a director, approved each of the above loans by the board of credit review.

(3) Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Co., Ltd.”), Marine Construction (hereinafter “Maritime Construction”), Nonparty 21, Nonparty 22, Nonparty 23, and Nonparty 24 jointly and severally guaranteed the above PF loans owed by Handon L&C. The details of the assets and the income status of Nonparty 21, Nonparty 22, Nonparty 23, and Nonparty 24 were not investigated.

(4) On March 12, 2007, the instant area was designated as a water field renewal acceleration organization pursuant to the Special Act for the Promotion of Urban Renewal as of March 12, 2007, but on February 1, 2010, the designation of an urban renewal acceleration district for the instant area was cancelled as against the residents’ urban renewal acceleration project. Accordingly, it was practically impossible to implement the project, and the Seoul Savings Bank failed to recover KRW 3,561,00,000 out of the above loans.

B) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments as a whole, evidence Nos. 10-16 to 31, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 violated the fiduciary duty or fiduciary duty as an executive officer dealing with the PF loan in the process of the above loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) The above loan is a structure in which the Seoul Savings Bank borrowed KRW 6 billion out of the total amount of loan KRW 42 billion to the Seoul Savings Bank, and financial institutions, such as Han Bank, Han Bank, Han Securities, and Han Capital, as joint owners, extended the remainder of the loan to be the remainder of the loan, if it were to obtain a land purchase loan to be designated as an entrepreneur in the instant region.

(2) At the time of the above loan, Han Mandon S&C secured 77.6% of the project site, and construction at sea and the company of the Republic of Korea was in the process of performing various construction contract projects other than the above project. In addition, on December 31, 2006, the audit opinion on the statement of financial position and statement of profits and losses was “reasonable”.

(3) The review report on feasibility of the project related to the development of the instant region prepared by Samil Accounting Corporation on March 2007 states the opinion that “Although the sale price per house is somewhat higher than the market price, this case is an urban regeneration project area, it is an urban regeneration project area with 50 or more stories, it is an urban regeneration complex with 6 main complexes with 50 or more stories, and there is an influence on the sale price by the contractor brand, it serves as a positive factor in the possibility of parcelling-out, and the average sale price of commercial buildings is determined to correspond to the market price.”

(4) The Financial Supervisory Service: (a) designated the instant area as an urban renewal acceleration district in Incheon City to be developed in the PE loan site and document inspection table for the instant regional development-related projects; and (b) deemed that the instant area was “continuous” and the location of the instant area development-related projects were delayed due to the residents’ non-public hearing; and (c) evaluated the feasibility of the instant regional development-related projects as “ordinary.”

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine the remainder of the issue.

5) Determination on the loan of the UNTTEX

가) 갑 제11호증의 1, 2, 갑 제25호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재에 의하면 엔비하이텍이 2007. 10. 8. 학교법인 충청학원(이하 ‘충청학원’이라 한다), 주식회사 엠에스 등과 서울 중구 ◀◀◀가 (지번 1 생략), (지번 2 생략) 대지 합계 855.6㎡ 지상에 호텔을 신축하는 사업을 하기로 하는 내용의 공동사업약정을 체결하고, 위 사업 시행을 위해 2008. 1. 8. 서울저축은행으로부터 42억 원을 대출받은 사실은 인정된다.

B) However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in evidence No. 25-4 and No. 25-8, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed as having violated the duty of good faith or loyalty during the loan process, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) On October 25, 2007, the Cheongju Institute was permitted to dispose of the said hotel business on the condition that ownership cannot be transferred without receiving the full amount of the sale price from the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development.

(2) 엔비하이텍은 충청학원 등으로부터 2007. 12. 6. 위 ◀◀◀가 소재 대지 중 5.9㎡/334.9㎡ 지분을 제외한 나머지 부분에 관하여 소유권을 이전받고 이를 담보로 하여 서울저축은행으로부터 위 대출을 받았다.

(3) The Seoul Savings Bank was submitted by Nonparty 25, the representative of the Chungcheong Bank, a written confirmation of the full payment of the purchase price for the transfer of ownership of the said land.

(4) On November 2009, the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development notified the Cheongju Institute, by February 26, 2010, that the approval for the appointment of the president of the Cheongju Institute would be revoked if the Cheongju Institute restores the ownership of real estate or fails to receive the full payment of the purchase price, on the ground that it violated the conditions of the permission for the disposal of ownership transfer before receiving the full payment of the purchase price. On March 26, 2010, the Cheongju Institute, upon filing an application for the revocation of a construction permit and filing an application for the revocation of the said new hotel project, does not proceed.

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine the remainder of the issue.

3. Claim against the defendant 2

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Acquisition of secured real estate related to the development of a new industry (hereinafter “development of a new industry”)

A) The Seoul Savings Bank requested a public sale at the price of 180% higher than 4,610,000,000 won for appraisal on June 2, 2011, with respect to the apartment complex of 97-5, Guro-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Guro-gu, the real estate of which is the secured real estate, and the apartment complex of △△△△△ and nine units (hereinafter referred to as the “Magsung apartment complex”).

B) The Seoul Savings Bank directly acquired at KRW 6,340,00,000 apartment units on June 16, 201 after the three-time public auction period after being 8,298,00,000 of the estimated sale price at KRW 8,29,00,00 of the estimated sale price at the first public auction date.

C) On June 10, 2011, Defendant 2 approved Defendant 2’s written approval on the draft form stating that he/she will bring into KRW 6,340,00,000 an apartment apartment in YU.

2) Payment of retirement consolation benefits to Nonparty 6

The Seoul Savings Bank paid KRW 62,500,000 as retirement consolation money to the non-party 6 audit committee who retired as of September 27, 2011, and the defendant 2 who was the representative director at the time was the president of the Bank signed the letter of goods as the president.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-4, Gap evidence 12-1 through 9, Gap evidence 13-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 2 acquired an apartment apartment in Doggu with a higher appraisal price, and in violation of the provision on the payment of retirement consolation money for officers, Defendant 2 paid retirement consolation money to Nonparty 6 and caused damage to the Seoul Savings Bank. Therefore, it is liable to compensate for such damage.

C. Determination as to the acquisition of an apartment in Dognae City

1) Occurrence of damages liability

According to the above facts, it is recognized that the Seoul Savings Bank requested a public sale of apartment apartment at an unreasonably high price and suffered damage by purchasing at an excessively higher price than the appraisal price. Thus, Defendant 2, as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, who approved the inflow acquisition of apartment apartment in Doe Agreement, is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the Seoul Savings Bank pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

2) Scope of liability for damages

The Seoul Savings Bank shall be deemed to have suffered a loss equivalent to the difference between the appraisal value and the acquisition value due to the acquisition of the unfair apartment in △△ apartment. Therefore, the amount of damages is KRW 1,730,000 (=6,340,000), - KRW 4,610,000 (=6,610,000).

3) Limitation on liability

However, at the time when Defendant 2 was appointed as the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank, the Seoul Savings Bank was in a false state; Defendant 2 made considerable efforts to normalize the financial status and management of the Seoul Savings Bank; Defendant 2 did not have any personal benefits acquired by the acquisition of the apartment apartment in △△; Defendant 2 had structural problems such as the structural problems in the execution of business, such as the formal loan examination procedure inside the Seoul Savings Bank and the audit procedure, etc.; and Defendant 2 limited Defendant 2’s liability for damages to 30% in consideration of all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments in the instant case.

4) Determination on Defendant 2’s assertion

Defendant 2 asserts that even if the collateral was introduced at a market price higher than the appraisal price and the non-performing loans were extinguished, the claim for the development of the industry has no property value because it is impossible to repay it already, so even if the collateral of the above claim was acquired higher than the appraisal price, it does not cause damage to the Seoul Savings Bank.

However, the Seoul Savings Bank, at the time of making a request for public sale on the apartment apartment apartment apartment in Yegu as seen earlier, reduced the price itself in excess of the appraisal value, and the fact that the Seoul Savings Bank purchased the last apartment house in excess of the appraisal value is seen as above. Thus, the Seoul Savings Bank, as seen above, acquired the apartment apartment in excess of the appraisal value, and thereafter, finally extinguished the claim corresponding to the difference between the acquisition value and the appraisal value by redeeming the secured debt based on the acquisition value, while purchasing the real estate at a higher price than the above difference. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Seoul Savings Bank suffered damages equivalent to the difference between the appraisal value and the acquisition value. Accordingly, Defendant 2’s above assertion is groundless.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, Defendant 2 is obligated to claim against the Plaintiff about KRW 519,00,000 equivalent to KRW 30% of the damages incurred by Seoul Savings Bank and about the existence and scope of the obligation, from August 23, 2013 to February 16, 2016, which is the date following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from August 23, 2013 to the date of the declaration of this case, until February 16, 2016, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

D. Determination as to the payment of retirement consolation benefits

1) The relevant provisions of the Seoul Savings Bank

Article 50 (Remuneration and Retirement Allowance for Directors)

(1) The remuneration of directors shall be determined by a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders.

(2) The payment of retirement allowances for directors shall be made by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders in accordance with the payment rules for directors.

Provisions on the payment of retirement allowance for officers

Article 1 [Purpose]

The purpose of this Regulation is to prescribe matters concerning the payment of retirement allowances for executives under Article 50 (2) of the Articles of Incorporation.

Article 2 [Scope of Application] This provision shall apply to executive directors and auditors (hereinafter referred to as "executive officers") appointed at a general meeting of shareholders at the time of retirement.

Article 3 【Payment】

When an executive is retired, the amount obtained by adding the following standard payment rate according to the continuous service period of the position as at the time of his/her retirement shall be paid as a retirement allowance:

(4) The Vice President “(3.5)” of the Executive Director “(3) the Executive Director “(2.5)” and the Full-time Audit Committee “(2.5)” of the Executive Director “(2.5)” of the Vice President.

Article 5 (Special Cases concerning Payment of Retirement Benefits)

(1) Notwithstanding the preceding Article, retirement allowances may be paid in addition to retirement allowances within the following payment rates, to an executive retired from office or who died on duty due to an occupational injury or disease:

1. A person who retired from an occupational injury or disease: 30 percent of the base payment rate;

2. A person who died on duty: 10 percent of the base payment rate;

(2) A person who has retired due to death other than the death on duty shall be paid an additional 50 percent of the standard payment rate: Provided, That in cases of less than ten years in continuous service, an additional 30 percent shall be paid

Article 6 (Special Cases for Application)

This provision shall not apply where a general meeting of shareholders determines the amount of retirement consolation benefits for officers separately.

2) Determination

A) Article 415-2(2) of the Commercial Act provides that the audit committee shall be comprised of not less than three directors. Article 388 of the Commercial Act provides that “The remuneration of directors shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders if the articles of incorporation does not provide for the amount in the articles of incorporation; retirement consolation benefits for directors shall be paid to a person retired from such office as compensation for the performance of his/her duties while in office (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da38930 delivered on February 24, 199); Article 6 of the Seoul Savings Bank’s Rules on the Payment of retirement consolation benefits for officers established by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders provides that “this provision shall not apply where the general meeting of shareholders separately determines the amount of payment for the retirement consolation benefits for officers; Article 433 of the Commercial Act provides that it is possible to amend the articles of incorporation if the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders is adopted, a stock company may determine matters concerning the payment of retirement consolation benefits for members only through the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

Meanwhile, in a case where a representative director with 80% of the company’s shares promises to pay bonuses to directors without a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders, it is reasonable to make a resolution to pay them at a general meeting of shareholders (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da1788, Jan. 10, 1978). In addition, as long as the transfer of shares is a special remuneration for non-invested officers in the name of contribution as a consideration for the performance of duties of non-invested officers, Article 388 of the Commercial Act on the remuneration of directors of a stock company is applied, and the decision to pay is effective, and a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders is required. In a case where the representative director owns 95% of the company’s shares and transfers shares to non-invested officers, the transfer of shares to non-invested officers of the company is necessarily effective (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4353, Sept. 15, 195).

B) Since it is difficult to view that Nonparty 2 was in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes or the Act and subordinate statutes at the time of Nonparty 2’s request for the payment of retirement consolation benefits to Nonparty 6, it is difficult to view that Nonparty 2 was in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes and the Act and subordinate statutes or the Act and subordinate statutes, and it was found that Nonparty 2 was in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes and the Act and subordinate statutes and the Act and subordinate statutes and the Act and subordinate statutes and regulations, and that Nonparty 2 was in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes and the Act and subordinate statutes and subordinate statutes and the Act and subordinate statutes and regulations as to the payment of retirement consolation benefits to Nonparty 6 at the time of Nonparty 2’s request for the payment of the remaining amount of retirement consolation benefits to Nonparty 6, who were in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes and the Act and subordinate statutes, were in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes and were in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes and were in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes and the Act and subordinate statutes, were in violation of the Act and regulations.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Claim against the defendant 3

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 3 is liable to compensate for damages that could not recover each of the above loans from the Seoul Savings Bank due to the failure to perform its duty of care as an auditor, even though it was poor, such as Ssingra, Singra, Co., Ltd., Ltd., Youngbu S Ssvi (hereinafter referred to as “Yingbu”), Co., Ltd., Ltd., Singroto Energy (hereinafter referred to as “singroto energy”), Singro-Tech Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “Singro-Tech”), Tae Young-mtex (hereinafter referred to as “Singro-mar”), etc., (hereinafter referred to as “Singro-mar”), Non-Party 3, Non-Party 4, and Chang-ming Industry (hereinafter referred to as “Singro-mar Industry”), although it exceeded the limit of individual borrower credit extension, credit investigation negligence, and claims preservation measures, etc.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On December 14, 2004, Seoul Savings Bank extended a credit loan of KRW 3 billion to Sweak business. However, the actual borrower of the loan was a nominal borrower, and the loan was in excess of the same person’s loan limit at the time of the loan, and the loan was in excess of the same person’s loan limit. Nonparty 30, a joint and several surety at the time of the loan was not examined.

2) The Seoul Savings Bank extended a credit loan of KRW 5 billion on May 18, 2005, and KRW 1.2 billion on June 20, 2005 to the Susung, respectively. At the time of each of the above loans, the Susung had already been in excess of the lending limit to the same person, and it did not examine Non-party 31, who is a beneficiary and a joint and several surety, on the debt repayment ability of the same person.

3) The Seoul Savings Bank extended credit loans of KRW 5 billion on May 23, 2005, KRW 1 billion on May 25, 2005, KRW 200 billion on May 25, 2005, and KRW 2 billion on August 1, 2005. However, the actual borrower of the above loan was the nominal borrower, and the volume was the excess of the same loan amount at the time of the above loan. At the time of the above loan, the repayment was not conducted as to the debt repayment ability of Nonparty 32, a joint and several surety at the time of the above loan.

4) The Seoul Savings Bank granted investment-to-ro loans of KRW 3 billion on October 14, 2004, and KRW 600 million on February 28, 2005 to the Investment-to-ro Energy. However, the actual borrower of the loan was the nominal borrower, and the investment-to-be was the one whose loan amount was exceeded at the time of the loan. At the time of the loan, Nonparty 3, a joint guarantor, did not examine the repayment ability of the investment-to-energy and Nonparty 3, a joint guarantor at the time of the loan.

5) The Seoul Savings Bank provided credit loans of KRW 3.5 billion on June 29, 2004 to the Investmentro-Mas-to-Mas-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

6) On July 1, 2005, the Seoul Savings Bank provided a credit loan of KRW 3.5 billion to Taesungex. At the time, Taesungex had already been in excess of the credit limit for the same person, and at the time of the said loan, it did not examine the debt repayment ability of the Taesungex and the Non-party 35, a joint guarantor.

7) The Seoul Savings Bank granted credit loans of KRW 3.2 billion on August 11, 2005 to Nonparty 3, and KRW 1.5 billion on March 17, 2006 to Nonparty 3. However, the actual borrower of the above loans was Taesungex, and Nonparty 3 was the nominal borrower, and Tae Taesungex had already exceeded the credit limit of the same person at the time of the above loan. At the time of the above loan, Nonparty 3 did not examine the debt repayment ability of the above loan.

8) On November 4, 2004, Seoul Savings Bank extended a credit loan of KRW 3.5 billion to Nonparty 4. At the time of the above loan, the collateral was not provided, and the debt repayment ability of Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 36 and Nonparty 37, a joint guarantor, was not examined.

9) On July 26, 2005, Seoul Savings Bank extended a loan of KRW 3 billion to the Changdong Industry. At the time of the loan, the Seoul Savings Bank did not actually examine the debt repayment ability of the 38, 39, 40, 50, the joint and several surety, the 38, 39, 40, 50, and 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

10) At the time of loans as set forth in paragraphs (1) through (9), Defendant 3, as an auditor of the Seoul Savings Bank, approved each of the above loans as a written resolution by the review division. The Seoul Savings Bank failed to recover all or part of the principal and interest of each of the above loans until now.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 4-7, 8, 16, 17-1 through 19, Gap evidence 18-1 through 23, Gap evidence 19-1 through 25, Gap evidence 20-1 through 14, Gap evidence 21, 22-1 through 11, Gap evidence 23-1 through 17, Gap evidence 24-1 through 20, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) As to loans to the creative industry

갑 제24호증의 1 내지 20의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 위 대출은 오산시 ▶동 ♠♠♠♠♠아파트 신축공사의 사업부지 매입자금 대출로 담보로 제공된 토지의 가치가 대출 규모에 비해 부족하기는 하였으나 위 아파트 주변이 대단위 아파트 주거지역이고 경부고속도로 오산 인터체인지로부터 5분 거리에 있으며 주변에 도시계획도로도 건설될 예정이 있어 개발가능성이 높았던 점, 서울저축은행 심사위원회는 위와 같은 점을 고려하여 대출을 승인하였는데, 이후 오산시로부터 도시기본계획상 계획인구가 부족하다는 이유로 사업인허가를 받지 못해 부실이 초래된 점 등을 종합하면, 창록산업에 대한 대출금이 제때 회수되지 않았다는 사정만으로 피고 3이 창록산업에 대한 대출 당시 심사부의안, 신용조사서 등에 관한 검토 및 감사를 소홀히 하는 등 감사로서 선관주의의무를 다하지 않았다고 보기 어렵고 달리 피고 3의 임무 해태가 있었다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없다.

2) As to the remainder of loans

In full view of the above acknowledged evidence, the representative director of the Seoul Savings Bank ordered the nominal borrower to provide loans as above in order to avoid the above situation where the non-party 15, the actual inspection owner of the non-party 11 and the non-party 35, the actual inspection owner of the Taesung Masung Madex, who was the actual inspection owner of the loan amount exceeded the loan limit for the same person. The executive officer of the Seoul Savings Bank handled each of the above loans by separately managing the loan agreement signed and sealed by the actual joint guarantor in addition to the loan agreement for inspection by the supervisory agency in accordance with the non-party 17's order. The Financial Supervisory Service only issued a formal document examination for each of the above illegal loans and the non-party 17, the actual inspection owner of the non-party 15, the actual inspection owner of the non-party 11 and the non-party 35, the actual inspection owner of the company's loan amount, and it is difficult to expect the above illegal loan amount to the defendant 201, etc.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendant 3 is without merit to further examine the remainder.

5. Claim against Defendant 4

A. Claim for damages related to the payment of retirement consolation benefits

1) Facts of recognition

According to Gap evidence Nos. 14-1 through 5, the Seoul Savings Bank paid 40,000,000 won as retirement consolation money on May 18, 2009 to the non-party 9 executive director who retired as of April 30, 2009, and paid 130,000,000 won to the non-party 8 audit committee member who retired as of May 31, 2009, and 10,000 won on June 16, 2009 to the non-party 8 audit committee member who retired as of May 31, 2009, respectively. Defendant 4 is recognized to have signed on each product as a director.

2) The relevant provisions of the Seoul Savings Bank

As described in paragraph (d)(1) above.

3) Occurrence of damages liability

According to the above facts, Defendant 4 had Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 8, who was an executive officer of the Seoul Savings Bank, pay the total of KRW 180,000,000 (= KRW 40,000 + KRW 130,000 + KRW 130,000 + KRW 10,0000 + KRW 10,000) to the Seoul Savings Bank, even though there is no reason prescribed in Article 5 of the Seoul Savings Bank’s provision on the payment of retirement allowances for executive officers of the Seoul Savings Bank, and thus, Defendant 4 has a duty to compensate for

The defendant 4 asserts that the Seoul Savings Bank paid retirement consolation money with the approval of the non-party 19 who is a major shareholder at the time of the Seoul Savings Bank.

However, even if the articles of incorporation has already stipulated the grounds for payment and amount of retirement consolation benefits for directors and auditors, matters concerning the payment of retirement consolation benefits applicable only to the relevant case through a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders can be determined by the articles of incorporation, and even if the general meeting of shareholders does not have a resolution, it is difficult to deem that the same resolution was made if retirement consolation benefits were paid in accordance with the same resolution even if the general meeting of shareholders, and even if the general meeting of shareholders was held, it would be difficult to deem that the company neglected to perform its duties as a director if the same resolution was made. However, it is insufficient to find that each statement of evidence Nos. 5 and 11 of evidence No. 5 and No. 11 of the Seoul Savings Bank was made at the time of payment of retirement consolation

4) Scope and limitation of liability for damages

The Seoul Savings Bank shall be deemed to have suffered a considerable loss due to the payment of unfair retirement consolation benefits to Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 8, so the amount of such loss is KRW 180,000,000.

However, in consideration of all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, including the fact that there is no personal benefit that Defendant 4 received from the above payment of retirement consolation benefits, and the decision of the payment of retirement consolation benefits and structural problems inside the Seoul Savings Bank were caused by the occurrence of damages, Defendant 4's liability for damages is limited to 30%.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, Defendant 4 is liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 54,00,000 (i.e., 180,000 x 30%) and 15% per annum under the Civil Act from August 22, 2013, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, until February 16, 2016, which is the day when this decision is rendered, to Defendant 4’s claim as to the existence and scope of the obligation.

B. Claim for damages related to defective loans against Han Mandon L&C

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 4 is liable to compensate for the damages caused to the Seoul Savings Bank in breach of the duty of care as a director, such as neglecting the credit investigation, failing to take the claims preservation measures properly, and neglecting to review the feasibility of the project.

2) Determination

A) According to the statements in Gap evidence 4-6, Gap evidence 10-1 through 15, each of the above 2.b. 4) is recognized.

B) However, in light of the circumstances described in each of the above 2.b. 4 Item (b) items, which are acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, evidence Nos. 10-16 to 31, it is difficult to view that Defendant 4 violated the fiduciary duty or fiduciary duty as an executive officer dealing with PF loans during each of the above loans, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine the remainder of the issue.

C. Claim for damages related to bad loans against Nonparty 10

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 4, while lending KRW 670,00,00 to Nonparty 10, neglected credit investigations, did not take proper measures to preserve claims, and neglected to review the feasibility of the project, thereby incurring damage to the Seoul Savings Bank in violation of the duty of care as a director, and thus, is liable to compensate for such damage.

2) Determination

A) In the case of the so-called large-scale loan that a financial institution provides a new loan only formally without receiving any real loan and causes the repayment of the existing debt, and practically extends the term of loan from the debtor at the time of the extension of the term, but if the term is extended, it can only be deemed that a new damage has occurred due to an extension of the term, only when the debtor knows that the financial situation of the debtor would worsen so that it would not recover the loan, and if the term is extended, it cannot be concluded that a new damage has occurred to the company as to the amount equivalent to the amount of the unpaid loan out of the large-scale loan without such circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da94585, Oct. 29, 2009, etc.).

B) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 15-1 through 15, namely, the Seoul Savings Bank loaned 6 billion won to Kenya Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Kenya"), on March 24, 2006, and since the construction of the Daegu-dong Complex, which was promoted by Kenya, exceeded 600 million won interest on the above loans during 2008, since the construction of the above loans was not smoothly conducted, the Seoul Savings Bank failed to extend the term of loans by allowing the above construction deliberation and the payment of overdue interest in the method of exchange loan, taking into account the circumstances under which the construction is in progress, and it cannot be viewed as 00,000,000 won for non-party 10 on June 30, 2008, the Seoul Savings Bank did not have any other reason to recognize that the above loans were paid to the non-party 600,700,000 won for the above loan without any new reason.

6. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1, 2, and 4 is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The claim against the defendant 3 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Han-hee (Presiding Judge)

1. Capital adequacy ratio of each bank under the criteria for the Bank for International Settlements (BIS):

2) The Plaintiff asserts that the actual borrower was in excess of the loan of the same person at the time of loan. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Seoul Savings Bank borrowed KRW 22.3 billion from the Seoul Savings Bank around February 21, 2007 in order to conceal the excess of the loan limit of the same person on the loan of the same person on the loan of the loan of the non-party 5, it appropriated the 6.2 billion won to repay the loan of the Seoul Savings Bank in the name of the non-party 5 (hereinafter “Seoul Savings Bank”), and the Seoul Savings Bank made the above loan in the name of the non-party 5 to repay the loan of the above loan of the Seoul Savings Bank in order to repay the loan of the Seoul Savings Bank in the name of the non-party 5. In light of the fact that the above loan was made in the name of the non-party 5 in order to repay the loan of the above loan of the Seoul Savings Bank, the above argument is rejected.