Even if the defendant's central association established the guidelines for handling affairs to be handled in handling the payment guarantee affairs and internally instructed to the non-party 1 agricultural cooperative, this alone cannot be said to have been done by the defendant's central association, and the payment guarantee of this case to the non-party association cannot be said to have been done by the defendant's central association.

Even if the defendant central association established the guidelines to handle the affairs to be handled in handling the payment guarantee affairs and internally instructed the non-party 1 agricultural cooperative, it cannot be said that the act of payment guarantee to the non-party cooperative cannot be deemed to have been done by the defendant central association, and it cannot be said that the non-party cooperative ordered the payment guarantee of this case to the non-party cooperative, as well as that the act of payment guarantee cannot be deemed to have been done by the defendant central association.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Rule of Use

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Gwangju District Court Decision 71Na304 delivered on February 9, 1972

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's attorney's second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the defendant's act of payment guarantee against the non-party 1, a member cooperative under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act of July 15, 1964, was established with guidelines for guaranteeing payment for the non-party 1, an agricultural cooperative's non-party 1 to whom the non-party 1 would be entitled to guarantee payment for the non-party 1's loan of funds from others, and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's share.

However, even if examining the evidence before adoption of the court below in light of the records, it cannot be found that the defendant federation ordered the above non-party 1 agricultural cooperative or the regular non-party 2 to guarantee the payment of this case, and according to its instruction, the non-party 2 did not find any materials to readily conclude that the act of payment guarantee of this case by the non-party 2 constitutes the act of performing duties of the non-party 1 agricultural cooperative under the guidelines for handling the above affairs.

Nevertheless, as the court below explained above, the defendant Federation instructed the guidelines for handling affairs of legal invalid payment guarantee, and the payment guarantee act of this case by the non-party 2 is in accordance with the above guidelines, and it is judged that it constitutes a tort against the plaintiff of the defendant Federation. It cannot be said that the defendant Federation confirmed facts without any evidence or committed an unlawful act without reason because it did not exhaust all necessary deliberation. Therefore, the judgment of the court below should not be exempted from reversal without any judgment on the argument of other appeals.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court