The nature of the contract establishing a right to collateral security, which is based on borrowing money from a person who is not a military union.

Where this agricultural cooperative borrowed money from a person who is not a military cooperative and entered into a mortgage contract in order to guarantee the obligation to compensate for damages arising from the failure to repay money, even if the above loan becomes null and void, the right to collateral security shall be deemed to guarantee the obligation to return unjust enrichment arising from the invalidation of the above loan.

Article 58 (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Article 11 (1) and (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 67Ra225 delivered on May 25, 1967

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In the court below, the Re-Appellant denied the fact that the Re-Appellant had secured the obligation to the State of Sori-ri Agricultural Cooperative, and even if it is true, the Sori-ri Agricultural Cooperative is limited to the business ability of the same union as a special corporation established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act within the scope prescribed by the same Act. Therefore, since the above union's act of borrowing money from the State of the above union cannot be done other than the acts of borrowing money from the military union which is higher unit, the above union's act of borrowing money is eventually null and void in violation of the above law and the obligation which is the cause of auction cannot be legally established, the decision of permission of auction is unlawful. However, according to the above contract of establishing the Re-Appellant's auction on this real estate, because the Sori-ri Agricultural Cooperative agreed to set up the first mortgage contract of this real estate within the limit of 8 million won for securing all liabilities arising from the non-performance and all liabilities arising from the above non-performance, it is reasonable to view that the above act of borrowing money by the head of Seoul National Agricultural Cooperative, which is not the above obligation of borrowing.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman