beta
Main Issues
It is reasonable to view that the issue of whether a financial institution falls under a specific loan as referred to in the proviso of Article 2 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for Loans in Arrears shall be decided as of the time of filing an appeal.
Summary of Judgment
Whether it falls under a specific loan under the proviso of paragraph (2) of this Article shall be reasonable to regard it as at the time of filing an appeal.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans by Financial Institutions
Re-appellant
Re-appellant
Order of the court below
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 71Ra746 delivered on March 4, 1972
Text
The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The Re-Appellant's ground for reappeal is examined.
It is reasonable to view that the appeal by which a financial institution may file a security deposit under the provisions of Article 5-2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Default Loans is limited to a specific loan under the provisions of the proviso of Article 2(2) of the same Act, and whether the loan constitutes such a loan should be decided as of the time of filing an appeal. However, according to the records, the re-appellant's filing of an appeal in this case is deemed as of September 6, 1971, and the court below should consider the loan of Korea Exchange Bank as of this day and consider whether the loan of this case constitutes a specific loan as of this day.
The Government's investment certificate in Chapter 297 of the Record is merely proved by the Minister of Finance and Economy as of December 30, 1971, and the present status of September 6, 1971 at the time of the filing of the appeal in this case is not revealed.
In order to have the original court deliberate and decide on this issue, the order of the original court shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.
The opinions of involved judges are consistent with this decision.
The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)