The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that a person, who received real estate from the company, entrusted the right to dispose of the real estate to the bank in order to repay the loan and debt to the bank, was an interpretation of the delegation of disposal.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that a person, who received real estate from the company, entrusted the right to dispose of the real estate to the bank in order to repay the loan and debt to the bank, was an interpretation of the delegation of disposal.

Articles 680, 114, and 118 of the Civil Act; Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Samho Law Office, Attorneys Lee Tae-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

Park Jong-cheon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na19974 delivered on April 24, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on timely evidence, stated that the non-party 2's wife, who was the major shareholder of the plaintiff company, was against the government authority's measure on September 27, 1980 that the non-party 2, who was the major shareholder of the plaintiff company, would sell non-business property owned by the company, major shareholder, or his relatives, etc., and would improve the company's financial structure by means of capital increase, etc. ("9.27 measure"), and reported most of the real property to the plaintiff company and the non-party 2, who was the principal bank of the plaintiff company, and delegated the authority to dispose of the real property to the non-party 1, who was the plaintiff company and the non-party 2, who was the main bank bank of the plaintiff company, to dispose of the above real property on December 31, 1981. The court below found that the above company's loan claims amounting to 40 billion won to the plaintiff company and the above company's above 2, as stated in the above list of the plaintiff 2, as above.

However, in light of the records stated in the evidence No. 4-1, No. 4-2 and No. 5-1,2, and No. 3 cited by the court below, it is clear that the Defendants entrusted the Defendant to dispose of the real estate at issue in this case in order to repay the loan borrowed from the Defendant’s Hawho-ho to Haw-ho, and the disposal method, procedure, and price vary according to the judgment of Haw-ho's Haw-ho's Haw-ho's Haw-ho to dispose of the real estate at Haw-ho's Haw-ho's Haw-1 and No. 5-1,2, and No. 5-3, the Defendants were authorized to dispose of the real estate at Haw-ho's Haw-ho's Haw-ho to dispose of the real estate at Haw-ho's Haw-ho's Haw-ho's Haw-ho.

The court below held that Heungung Bank did not sell and dispose of each real estate owned by the Defendants, and once it reverted to the Plaintiff Company, in order for the Plaintiff Company to dispose of such real estate in an appropriate time, the court below held that the above real estate was donated to the Plaintiff Company on behalf of the Defendants. However, since the certificate of delegation of disposal made by the Defendants to the Bank was for the purpose of recovering claims against the Plaintiff Company, it may be acceptable for the Bank to dispose of such real estate as a means of recovering claims, but it shall not be allowed for the Bank to give the obligor a donation like the approval of the court below to deprive the Plaintiff of the opportunity for the Defendants to exercise the rights to demand a reimbursement as a surety of the Defendants (only if the above bank was to pay the amount equivalent to the market price of the real estate to the Plaintiff Company when it donated the real estate to the Plaintiff Company, and if it transferred such real estate to the Plaintiff Company, it shall not be deemed null and void since it did

Even if the above bank donated the real estate to the Plaintiff Company on the same way as the original judgment regardless of the repayment of the claim, it cannot be deemed as null and void since it exceeds the purpose of the above letter of delegation for disposal.

Ultimately, the court below did not err by misapprehending the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the defendants' failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the course of disposal of real estate in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a ground for appeal stating this point.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)