(a) Criteria to determine whether a proximate causal relationship exists between an act in violation of a statute and the damage of a third party;

(b) The case holding that there is no proximate causal relationship between the acts of lending money by a mutual savings and finance company to Gap in violation of Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act and the acts of lending money to Gap in excess of the credit limit, and the acts of lending money to Gap within the limit of credit limit, after completing the registration of establishment of a subordinate mortgage, and the third parties who were not paid dividends in the distribution procedure;

A. Even if a representative director of a mutual savings and finance company incurred a loss to a third party on the ground of the additional loan in violation of the laws, such as Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, the mutual savings and finance company and its representative director should have a proximate causal relationship between acts in violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and the third party's loss. In determining the existence of a proximate causal relationship, not only the probability of the occurrence of the result, but also the legislative purpose of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, the form of the act of violating the above Acts and subordinate statutes, the nature of

B. The case holding that the purpose of Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, which is, in principle, prohibited loans exceeding a certain amount to the same person, should be entrusted to the company's autonomy, but it is not that a profit-making corporation's loan business, etc. is in principle entrusted to the company's original business, but it is intended to give more opportunities to provide loans to a specific person by regulating excessive weight loan due to its public nature according to its financing intermediary function, and it does not allow a third party who wants to make a transaction with a person who received a benefit, loan, or bill discount from the mutual Savings and Finance Company to estimate the scope of loans to be borne by the person who received the loan, etc. or protect the person who trusted that the mutual Savings and Finance Company would do so within the limit of loans as stipulated in the above Acts and subordinate statutes, unless considering the purpose and interest of Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act and the purpose of Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act and the trust of the third party who did not receive dividends in the distribution procedure, it does not violate the above provisions of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act.

C. Even if a mutual savings bank has made a loan in excess of the credit limit amount as stipulated in Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, the effects under private law are not affected.

(b)Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, Article 8 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, Article 750, Article 763 (Article 393) of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Da30877 delivered on June 10, 1994

Plaintiff

Dongyang Mutual Savings and Finance Co., Ltd. and one other Defendants, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na42179 delivered on March 29, 1994

The part of the judgment below against the Defendants shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Summary of the reasoning of the judgment below

A. Facts acknowledged by the court below

(1) The Defendant Dongyang Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter the Defendant Company) extended the total amount of KRW 780,000,000 to the Non-party Soduk Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Non-party Company) four times from October 13, 198 to September 12, 1989.

(2) On December 14, 1990, the Defendant Company completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Defendant Company in the order of 1, 2, and 3 of the judgment below that it owned by the Nonparty Company in order to secure the above loans to the Defendant Company and obligations arising from future loans.

(3) On April 191, 191, the Plaintiff investigated the status of debt obligations of the non-party company and the current status of providing real estate owned by the non-party company upon receiving a request to lend money from the non-party company, and subsequently, on the 25th of the same month, lent 600,000 won to the non-party company, and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate in the name of the plaintiff for each real estate listed in the attached Tables 1, 3 through 5 of the judgment below (as to the real estate listed in the attached Tables 1 and 3 above), in order to secure the above loan claims.

(4) However, on June 21, 1991, the Defendant Company extended to Nonparty Company a discount of the amount equivalent to KRW 300,000,000 at face value again, in addition to the loans under the above paragraph (1) above, to Nonparty Company, thereby resulting in KRW 1,080,000,000.

(5) On June 1991, when the bill was issued against the non-party company of the defendant company, the sum of the capital, reserves, and other surplus of the defendant company was KRW 15,639,84,662.

(6) Since the non-party company failed to repay the above loans, the defendant company filed an application for voluntary auction with the Seoul Special District Court for each real estate listed in the above attached Table 1 through 3 on the basis of each right to collateral security stated in the above paragraph (2) above, and the plaintiff trusted that the non-party company would not give additional loans in violation of the law since the defendant company set up subordinated collateral security right to real estate listed in the attached Table 1 and 3 and borrowed 600,000 won to the non-party company in violation of the above attached Table 1 and 3, it was known that the non-party company had already borrowed 780,000,000 won and paid 60,000 won to the non-party company, which was already loaned 780,000,000 won and interest on the above additional loans to the non-party company, the defendant company would incur damages to the plaintiff.

(7) Defendant 2 is the representative director of the defendant company, and all additional loans, application for voluntary auction, submission of statements of claim and receipt of dividend against the non-party company of the defendant company, and the defendant 2 performed his duties as the representative director of the defendant company.

B. The judgment of the court below

(1) Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (hereinafter only referred to as the “Act”) stipulate that a mutual savings and finance company cannot make payment, loan, or bill discount exceeding 5/100 of the total amount of the capital, reserve, and other surplus per capita for a small-scale enterprise. According to the above findings, the sum of the capital, reserve, and other surplus of the Defendant Company as of June 1991 is KRW 15,639,84,662, and at that time, the Defendant Company was obligated at that time to not make a loan exceeding the amount of KRW 781,92,23 won (=15,639,84,62 won x 5/100).

(2) As seen earlier in violation of the above duty, the Defendant Company extended a discount of KRW 300,00,000 to the non-party company, even though it had already been making a loan of KRW 780,00,000,00, and thereafter, knew that it would cause damage to the Plaintiff during the voluntary auction procedure for real estate listed in the attached Table 1 to the judgment below owned by the non-party company, and trust that the above Defendant would not make an additional loan by receiving the total sum of the principal and interest of the discounted bill loans of KRW 300,00,000,000 from the non-party company, and made the non-party company a loan of KRW 60,00,000 to the non-party company and caused the Plaintiff to receive dividends of KRW 296,445,860,84,70,000, which could not have been paid without the excess amount of KRW 296,486,284,70).

(3) Thus, the defendant company is liable for damages inflicted upon the plaintiff due to the illegal act committed by the defendant 2, who is the representative director, and the defendant 2 also is liable for damages inflicted on the plaintiff as a person who committed such illegal act. Thus, each of the above damages liability of the defendants against the plaintiff is in an in personam joint and several relationship.

(4) Even as the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company believed that it would not provide additional benefits and loans exceeding the credit limit under the above Acts and subordinate statutes and lent money to the Nonparty Company. In light of this negligence (rate 30%), the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 148,512,812, and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendants' grounds of appeal

A. Upon examining relevant evidence in the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss this issue.

B. However, even if Defendant 2, the representative director of the defendant company, suffered losses on the part of the plaintiff due to additional loans to the non-party company in violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, the defendants should have a proximate causal relation between the acts in violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes and the plaintiff's losses in order to be liable for damages to the plaintiff. Thus, in determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account not only the probability of the occurrence of the result, the legislative purpose of Article 12 of the Act, the protected legal interest, the mode of violating the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and the nature of the benefits of infringement (see, e.g

However, in principle, the purport of Article 12 of the Act, which prohibits loans exceeding a certain amount to the same person, is that it is in principle entrusted to the company's autonomy. However, due to its public nature according to its financing brokerage function, giving more opportunities to extend loans to a certain person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1458, Dec. 22, 1987). Further, considering the purpose of the provision of Article 12 of the Act and the legal interests protected by the Act and the damages suffered by the plaintiff, the above provision does not simply mean that the defendant 2 violated the above provision of the Act and the law and regulations and did not provide for the defendant 2's trust in the above lending of loans to the non-party 1, who is a representative of the company, even though the non-party 2 did not violate the above provision of the Act and regulations.

In addition, as recognized by the court below, the above additional bill discount loan obligations of the non-party company against the non-party company are guaranteed by the above-mentioned collateral security right in the name of the defendant company, and even if the defendant company extended a loan to the non-party company in excess of the credit limit set forth in Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the company, there is no influence on the validity under the private law. Thus, it is natural that the defendant company received the total amount of the above additional loan claims against

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of tort and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which held that the Defendants are liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages inflicted on the Plaintiff on the grounds as seen above. The grounds for appeal assigning this error are with merit.

3. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

As seen earlier, as long as the Defendants are not liable for damages against the Plaintiff, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages as stated in its holding and assessed the rate of negligence of the Plaintiff competing with the occurrence of the damages in this case as 30%, and held that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete hearing, incomplete reasoning, or misapprehension of legal principles, etc

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The Plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal with respect to this part of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)