beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
2. Grounds: Article 37 of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (Amended by Act No. 12100, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24635, Jun. 21, 2013); Article 18 of the former Regulations on Inspection and Sanctions of Financial Institutions (Amended by Act No. 2013-43, Dec. 20, 2013); Article 46 [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on Inspection and Sanctions of Financial Institutions (Amended by Act No. 2013-43, Jul. 23, 2014);
Ⅱ The grounds for the measure (cadastral matters) - The mutual savings bank is unable to extend credit to the large shareholder or his/her relatives or persons in a special relationship with him/her, but on October 7, 2010, it treated 500 million won of the comprehensive passbook loan in the name of D (the full recovery was made on January 13, 2015) to the Plaintiff’s children who are the representative director and the large shareholder (the Plaintiff’s children were recovered on January 13, 2015) * the fact that as of June 30, 2010, there is no dispute over 13.2% of the equity capital of 3.77 billion won as of June 30, 2010 / [based on recognition] 13.2% of the total amount of equity capital
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan of KRW 500 million (hereinafter “instant loan”) was made in the name of D on October 7, 2010 is not a loan granted by C under the name of D, but it was actually a loan granted by D from the savings bank of this case. However, C only borrowed money from D as it requires its business funds thereafter, and the Plaintiff also recognized the instant loan as a loan for D.
Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. 1) As of October 7, 2010, the Plaintiff owned 86.0% of the equity interest of the savings bank as of October 7, 2010, and C is the father and wife of the Plaintiff.
C This is between September 201 and October 201.