[1] Whether a regular deposit contract is established between a depositor and a credit union where a depositor expresses his/her intent to deposit money to a credit union’s manager and the manager personally consumeds the money (affirmative)

[2] The method of interpreting a joint and several guarantee agreement to the effect that "a credit union and the Safety Fund shall comprehensively guarantee that the principal and interest of the savings of a credit union shall be liable and payable as an individual in the event of lack of payment capacity

[1] As long as a depositor receives money by expressing his/her intention to deposit the money to the manager of a credit union in charge of the business of a financial institution and of paying important deposits, even if the manager does not deposit the money to the credit union and personally consumes it to the depositors, a regular deposit contract between the depositors and the credit union is valid.

[2] In a case where the president of a credit union agreed that "the credit union and the safety fund for all transactions the members of which are savings in the credit union shall guarantee the comprehensive joint and several liability that they shall be liable and payable as an individual qualification when the credit union and the safety fund are insufficient to pay such shortage, even if legal treatment (a seizure, auction) is conducted, they shall guarantee the comprehensive joint and several liability with no objection," the above joint and several liability agreement shall be interpreted as an agreement that the deposit owner shall be given priority to the credit union or the safety fund of the principal debtor by recognizing the supplement of the nature of the ordinary joint and several liability obligation by changing the nature of the joint and several liability obligation. However, it shall be interpreted as an agreement that the joint and several surety shall be liable

[1] Articles 532 and 702 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105 and 428 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30159 Decided December 23, 2005 (Gong2006Sang, 161) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753 Decided June 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1620)

The Korea Amateur Association of Korea (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 22, 2006

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,250,000,000 won with 10% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 27, 2003, the Plaintiff, a manager of the Newcheon Credit Union (hereinafter “Newcheon Credit Union”), who was in charge of the affairs of new consultation, took charge of the deposit and withdrawal of important deposits, requested Nonparty 1 to withdraw KRW 450 million from the account under the name of Nonparty 2, the representative of the Plaintiff, and make a request for a regular deposit of KRW 450 million for one year in the name of the Plaintiff. Nonparty 1 withdrawn KRW 450 million from the account under the name of Nonparty 2, and then did not make a regular deposit of KRW 450 million from the account under the name of the Plaintiff, and issued the said deposit of KRW 450 million to the Plaintiff on a regular deposit of KRW 1 year, and then received a request from the Plaintiff for a regular deposit of KRW 450 million from the Plaintiff for one year thereafter, and then delivered the Plaintiff at his own discretion on a regular deposit of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

B. On October 25, 2004, the Plaintiff again requested a regular deposit of KRW 300 million with the maturity of one year. Nonparty 1 withdrawn KRW 300 million and did not make a regular deposit with the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff. Nonparty 1 arbitrarily prepared a passbook with the purport that 300 million won shall be deposited at an annual interest rate of 4.6% and delivered it to the Plaintiff, and then individually consumed the above KRW 300 million.

C. On October 25, 2004, Nonparty 1 received an application for loan and a written request from the Plaintiff under the Plaintiff’s name and used the loan amount of KRW 180 million as collateral from May 21, 2004 by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s loan application and written request from the Plaintiff on a false statement to the New Master’s name, who is the director of the Plaintiff’s financial department, and requested the Plaintiff to deposit KRW 300 million for a new fixed term deposit. Nonparty 1 withdrawn the above regular deposit amount of KRW 200 million and KRW 100 million in the account under the name of Nonparty 2 on November 24, 2004, and issued it to the Plaintiff at an interest rate of KRW 30 million on April 6, 200 per year, and then withdrawn the remaining regular loan amount of KRW 180 million under the name of Nonparty 1 and KRW 200 million under the name of the Plaintiff’s personal consumption.

D. As of September 20, 2004, Nonparty 1 received loans of KRW 180 million from the Plaintiff as security on November 28, 2003, and requested the Plaintiff to make a regular deposit of KRW 200 million at an annual interest rate of KRW 4.6% for one year, when Nonparty 1 again requested the Plaintiff to make a regular deposit of KRW 180 million with the maturity of November 29, 2004, by means of the above paragraph (c) and the above paragraph (c) above, and then paid KRW 180,000 to the Plaintiff with the maturity of the above regular deposit of KRW 20 million.

E. On December 15, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of each of the above regular deposits with the Newcheon Union to terminate the contract while claiming the return of the deposit, but the Newcheon Union rejected the return of the deposit on the ground that the deposit passbook presented by the Plaintiff was forged.

F. At around July 15, 1997, the defendant, who had been in office for the president of the Newcheon Credit Union since the establishment of the Newcheon Credit Union around 1994, entered into an agreement with the non-party 1, 3, and 4, that the defendant, together with the non-party 1, 3, and 4, shall guarantee the comprehensive joint and several liability that the principal and interest on all transactions kept by the same members of the Newcheon Credit Union shall be liable for an individual qualification when the new 3-dong Credit Union and the Safety Fund are insufficient to pay the shortage, and that the joint and several liability guarantee shall be provided to any property of the joint and several sureties even if there is no objection.

G. In order to easily deposit the money that the Plaintiff entered on Sundays which is a holiday of a financial institution, the Plaintiff opened an account with Nonparty 1, the head and Nonparty 1, the head and Nonparty 1, the manager, from time to time, deposited the money, but if a certain amount of money was thereafter deposited, the Plaintiff deposited the money periodically in the name of the Plaintiff. From 1994 to November 1, 2004, only a regular deposit was about 51 times from the date of the establishment of the Newcheon Credit Union up to November 15, 197, and as of July 15, 1997, 50 million won was regularly deposited in the Newcheon Credit Union as of January 24, 1997 (the date of the deposit).

(h) relevant legal provisions;

former Credit Unions Act (amended by Act No. 5453 of Dec. 13, 1997)

Article 83-22 (Establishment of Safety Fund)

The Safety Fund shall be established and operated by the National Federation in order to protect the property of the association members and promote the sound growth and development of the association by guaranteeing the refund of deposits and installment savings paid by the union members to the union.

Matters necessary for the creation, operation, and management of the Safety Fund under paragraph (2) shall be prescribed by the regulations of the Federation.

National Credit Union Federation of Korea (amended by February 28, 1996) of the Safety Fund Management Rules of the National Credit Union Federation of Korea

Article 2 (Definition of Terms) The definitions of terms used in this Code shall be as follows:

The term "payment by subrogation" in subparagraph 4 means payment by the National Federation to a union where the union is unable to refund the deposits and installment savings of the union members.

Article 21 (Standards for Performance by Subrogation)

The subjects of subrogation under paragraph (1) shall be the amount equivalent to the principal out of deposits and installment savings of union members as of the date the cause of subrogation occurs: Provided, That public deposits and student savings in relation to the agency affairs of the State, public organizations and financial institutions shall be included as subjects of subrogation

The maximum amount payable to the same person in subrogation under paragraph (2) shall be KRW 10 million, except for public deposits.

Where a partner to whom a subrogation is made under paragraph (3) has any of the following amounts, the amount calculated by subtracting such amount from the principal under paragraph (1) shall be deemed the principal under paragraph (1):

1. The amount of debts, if any, borne by the partnership;

2. Where all or part of the deposits and installment savings are offered to the union as security for a third party's loan, the deposits and installment savings provided as security.

The date of occurrence of the cause of subrogation under paragraph (4) means the day preceding the date on which the partnership resolves to dissolve.

If a general meeting for dissolution under paragraph (5) is not organized, the date designated by the Committee shall be the base date for subrogation.

[Based on recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-1 through 4, 1-4, 5-1 through 4, 5-6 (joint guarantee certificate, and the defendant's seal imprint part of the document are presumed to be the authenticity of the whole document due to the lack of dispute over the part of the defendant's seal impression. The defendant defense that this document was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), 13, 14, 16, 11-2, 1-2, 2-1, 2-1, 68-9, 69-39, 40, 41, 43, 50, and 55-2, 2-1, 2-1, 69-39-2, 69-2, 40, 41,

2. Formation of the principal obligation against the plaintiff in the new astronomical consultation;

A deposit contract is established when a depositor provides a financial institution with money and confirms that a financial institution actually received money according to his/her own intent in expressing the intent of deposit. Whether an employee of a financial institution actually paid the money to a financial institution is affected by the formation of the deposit contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30159, Dec. 23, 2005). Thus, inasmuch as the Plaintiff, as a manager of the Newcheon New Credit Union, who was in charge of the affairs of newcheon Credit Counseling and expressed his/her intention to make a regular deposit and delivered the money to the non-party 1, who was in charge of the deposit of important deposits, as a manager of the newcheon Credit Union, and the non-party 1 received it, even if the non-party 1 did not deposit the money and used it for personal consumption and delivered a forged passbook to the Plaintiff, each regular deposit contract between the Plaintiff and the Newcheon Credit Union is valid, and since the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the deposit contract by claiming the return of each of the above regular deposit.

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment on the joint and several liability

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff guaranteed the defendant's comprehensive joint and several obligations for all deposits that the Newcheon Union owes to the plaintiff, and the joint and several sureties's "when the Newcheon Credit Union and the Safety Fund fail to meet the requirements for joint and several obligations and are agreements on compulsory execution." Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the above regular deposits and interest on the above regular contracts to the plaintiff. However, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the defendant the above regular deposits and interest on the contract only when the Newcheon Credit Union and the Safety Fund are insufficient, and that the defendant has no obligation to pay the defendant the joint and several

(b) Markets:

The interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties have granted to the act of indicating the juristic act, and in a case where the authenticity of the instrument is recognized, it shall be objectively interpreted that the parties have expressed their intent in accordance with the contents of the language stated in the instrument, barring any special circumstances. In a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of the instrument, and the interpretation of the parties' intent expressed in the instrument is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language, motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties' genuine intent, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da50877, Jan.

In light of the language and text of the above joint and several liability agreement, it clearly states that the defendant will pay for himself in the case of lack of payment capacity. The plaintiff's regular deposit at the time of the conclusion of the above joint and several liability agreement is more than KRW 500 million, barring any special circumstance, it is anticipated that the new debtor credit union, which is a financial institution, will be capable of paying it. The plaintiff's claim is guaranteed by the safety fund created under the Credit Cooperatives Act, and the defendant's personal-friendly relationship is that the non-party 1, who has overall control over all affairs of the defendant's new credit consultation, was the plaintiff's new credit union for a long time and is engaged as the head of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was continuously engaged in transactions with the new debtor. Considering that the joint and several liability agreement of this case cannot be deemed as an ordinary joint and several liability agreement that the joint and several liability agreement of this case cannot be deemed as a joint and several liability agreement that the defendant assumes the same responsibility as the principal debtor, by changing the nature of the joint and several liability owed by the defendant, and it should be interpreted as a new agreement or a security fund.

However, according to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 11 and evidence Nos. 70, as of November 15, 2006, the remainder of the deposit in the Newcheon Union is KRW 5,617,074,461, and the amount of pledge established among them is not only KRW 1,514,00,000,000. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of deposit against the Newcheon Union, and filed a lawsuit claiming the return of deposit against the Newcheon Union on October 31, 2006, and now pending in the appellate court after receiving a favorable judgment against the plaintiff to pay the sum of KRW 1.25,50,000,000,000 as well as the agreed interest, so long as it cannot be said that the Newcheon Union has more deposit than the amount of the plaintiff's claim and compulsory execution against the above deposit cannot be said to be difficult, the plaintiff as a joint and several surety for the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)