The case holding that even if Article 89 (5) of the current Credit Union Act was newly enacted in the process of amendment, and Paragraph (5) of this Article was changed to Paragraph (6) of this Article, and Paragraph (7) of this Article was also changed to Paragraph (5) of this Article, but it is clear that the amendment without any change was attributable to the actual number in the process of amendment of the law, it cannot be said that Paragraph (5) of this Article, which is referred to in Paragraph (7) of this Article, was amended to Paragraph (6) of this Article, and it did not lead to the formation of the law or the creation of the law beyond the possible meaning of the provisions of the law.

In light of the overall system of the former Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 6957 of Jul. 30, 2003) and the current provisions related to the Credit Union Act, and the purpose and circumstances of the amendment under Article 6957 of the Act, it should have been changed to Paragraph 5 of Article 89 of the current Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 6957 of Jul. 30, 200), and Paragraph 6 of Article 89 of the former Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 6957 of Jul. 5, 200) and Paragraph 7 of Article 89 of the former Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 6957 of Jul. 30, 200), since it was changed to Paragraph 6 of this Article, it cannot be said that the act of establishing a law or creating a law beyond the possible meaning of the provision.

Article 89(5) and (6) of the former Credit Unions Act (amended by Act No. 6957 of July 30, 2003); Article 89(6) and (7) of the Credit Unions Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Han-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Federation of Korea

Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na6318 Decided September 28, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 89(5) of the former Credit Union Act (amended by Act No. 6957 of Jul. 30, 2003; hereinafter “former Credit Union Act”) provides that “the National Federation Chairperson may, if deemed necessary, have an employee under his/her control inspect the business of a cooperative; and Article 89(6) provides that “the National Federation Chairperson may order corrective measures or take any of the following measures in accordance with the result of an inspection conducted under paragraph (5) or may take any of the following measures.” However, Article 89(5) of the former Act amended by Act No. 6957 provides that “the Financial Supervisory Commission shall conduct an inspection under Article 83(2) in order to determine whether a union fails to faithfully implement the measures for improving its financial status under paragraph (4) of the same Article, to determine whether the union falls under the requirements for business management under Article 86(1).” Article 89(5) and (6) of the former Credit Union Act was newly established and amended by the former Act without changing its content to the new Act (hereinafter “former Act”).

Article 89 of the former Credit Union Act provides for the method and authority of the National Federation Chairperson to direct and supervise unions necessary for the performance of its business activities under Article 78(1) of the Act. In revising the Act by Act No. 6957, Article 89(4) of the former Credit Union Act provides that the National Federation Chairperson may request the National Federation Chairperson to take measures to improve the financial status of the union. On the other hand, if the union Chairperson requested the National Federation Chairperson to take measures under Article 89(4) of the current Credit Union Act to take such measures in good faith, the Financial Supervisory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Financial Supervisory Commission"), if the union fails to take such measures in good faith, has the National Federation Chairperson conduct an inspection to determine whether the National Federation Chairperson will take business administration under Article 86(1) of the current Credit Union Act (hereinafter referred to as the "National Federation Chairperson") to ensure the effectiveness of the measures requested by the union to improve its financial status and to strengthen the authority of the National Federation Chairperson.

Meanwhile, Article 89(5) and (6) of the former Act provides that the National Federation Chairperson may inspect the business affairs of the union, if deemed necessary for the guidance and supervision of the union, and that the National Federation Chairperson may take measures such as correction, etc. according to the results of the inspection, as well as administrative measures that can be taken against the executive officers and employees of the union or the union pursuant to Articles 84 and 85 of the Act, thereby granting the National Federation Chairperson a strong authority to direct and supervise the union.

그런데 위와 같이 개정하면서 구 신협법 제89조 제5항 및 제6항 을 현행 신협법 제89조 제6항 및 제7항 으로 항만 바꿨을 뿐 그 내용은 그대로 둠으로써 현행 신협법 제89조 제7항 에서 인용하는 제5항 이 신설된 제5항 , 즉 금감위의 조합에 대한 검사조항을 지칭하는 것이 되었고, 이를 문언대로 해석하는 경우 중앙회장은 금감위의 검사 결과에 따라 그 시정조치를 할 수 있을 뿐이고, 현행 신협법 제89조 제6항 에 의하여 중앙회장이 시행한 검사 결과에 따라서는 제7항 소정의 조치를 할 수는 없고, 단지 금감위에 대하여 현행 신협법 제89조 제8항 에 의한 보고나 제86조 제1항 제5호 에 의한 경영관리 건의만 할 수 있게 되는바, 이와 같은 결과는 구 신협법 시행 당시 보다 오히려 중앙회장의 지도·감독권한을 대폭 축소시키는 것으로서 당초 위 개정을 통하여 중앙회장의 지도·감독 권한을 강화하려던 개정 목적과 전혀 부합하지 않는다고 할 것이다.

In addition, the purpose of the inspection under Article 89 (5) of the current Act is to determine whether a union fails to take measures under Article 86 (4) in good faith, and if the inspection results show that a union falls under the requirements for business management under Article 86 (1), it can achieve the purpose of the inspection by appointing a manager and requiring the union to conduct business management under Article 86 (1), and if necessary, it is possible to take administrative measures under Articles 84 and 85 of the current Act. Thus, it is not necessary to provide that the National Federation Chairperson may take measures according to the inspection results under Article 89 (5) of the current Act. If the National Federation Chairperson is not the National Federation Chairperson but the subject of measures under Article 89 (7) of the current Act is different from the subject of the inspection results, so it is difficult for the National Federation Chairperson to give notice to the National Federation Chairperson of the results of the inspection or to take measures under Article 86 (1) of the current Act. Therefore, it is difficult for the National Federation Chairperson to give notice to the National Federation Chairperson of the result of the inspection.

Therefore, in light of the overall system of the former and current provisions related to the Trade Union Act, as well as the purpose and circumstances of the amendment under Article 89(5) of the current Trade Union Act and Article 6957, Article 89(5) of the current Trade Union Act should have been newly established in the process of the amendment of the Act, and the former provisions under Article 89(5) of the former Act were changed to those under paragraph(6) of the same Article, and therefore, Article 89(5) of the former Trade Union Act should have also been changed to “paragraph 6,” and it is apparent that the amendment without any change was attributable to the number of times during the process of amendment of the Act. Thus, even if Article 89(7) of the current Trade Union Act is amended to “paragraph 6,” it cannot be said that this would result in the formation of the law or the creation of

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that Article 89 (7) of the current Act shall be construed as either an order to take necessary measures, such as correction, etc., or an order to take measures stipulated in any subparagraph of paragraph (7) by the National Federation Chairperson, in accordance with the National Federation Chairperson's inspection result, notwithstanding the language and text thereof, and it shall not be deemed that there was an error in the interpretation of statutes as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)