[1] The case holding that where the director of the finance division of a company in charge of the affairs such as deposit and withdrawal of funds submits to a financial institution by forging a collateral guarantee certificate, board entry resolution, and endorsement of promissory notes in the name of the company for a third party, and the trusted financial institution suffers losses by lending to a third party, the financial institution also did not comply with the loan regulations and did not directly verify the authenticity of the guarantee contract, and therefore, it offsets 30% by negligence on the ground that

[2] Where part of a large amount of joint and several liability with different amounts is extinguished due to repayment, etc., the part which is first extinguished (=the part on which the single liability is

[1] The case holding that in case where the director of the finance division of a company in charge of the affairs such as deposit and withdrawal of funds submits to a financial institution by forging a collateral guarantee certificate, board entry resolution, and endorsement of promissory notes in the name of the company for a third party and causes losses by lending to a third party by the trusted financial institution, the financial institution also did not comply with the loan regulations and did not directly verify the authenticity of the guarantee contract, and it offsets 30% of the negligence on the ground that

[2] In a case where part of a debt with a different amount is extinguished due to repayment, etc., the part which is first extinguished shall be deemed not to be the part which is jointly and severally liable with another debtor, but the part which is jointly and severally liable with the other debtor, in light of the intent of the joint and several liability system to ensure that the full amount of the debt is secured.

[1] Article 756 (1) of the Civil Code / [2] Articles 477 and 760 (1) of the Civil Code

[2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da10931 delivered on August 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2275), Supreme Court Decision 94Da5731 delivered on March 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1571), Supreme Court Decision 94Da19600 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2773), Supreme Court Decision 95Da24364 delivered on December 10, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 297Sang, 297), Supreme Court Decision 97Da5706 delivered on July 24, 198 (Gong198Ha, 2206).

Korean Long-term Credit Bank, Inc. (Law Firm citizen General Law Office, Attorneys Go Young-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Maump, Attorneys Yoon Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na50950 delivered on October 27, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below acknowledged that the non-party 1, who was in charge of the business of paying money as the director of the financial division of the defendant, committed an illegal act in relation to the non-party 1's execution of business as the defendant's employer, and submitted to the plaintiff (the long-term credit bank prior to the merger), through a pair of co-owners (hereinafter referred to as "swin-mixed"), forged a guarantee certificate, board entry resolution, and a promissory note endorsement under the name of the defendant, and thereby, the plaintiff believed that the above documents were lawfully prepared, and entered into a monetary loan agreement with both Sung-mixed as a ground for it, and paid a loan of KRW 4,50,00,000 in total from March 27, 1993 to December 28 of the same year, and held that the defendant is not liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above illegal act in relation to the non-party 1's execution of business, and therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the defendant's duty to compensate the plaintiff for damages.

2. The court below is just and acceptable to set-off 30% of negligence on the ground that the plaintiff also did not properly observe the loan regulations as a financial institution specializing in the loan business, and that there were errors such as failure to directly verify the authenticity of the guarantee agreement to the defendant, etc., and the ratio is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Therefore, the ground of appeal as to this point is rejected.

3. The court below held that, in light of the plaintiff's negligence 30% of the damages that the defendant is liable to compensate for shall be 3,150,000 won (gold 4,500,000,000 won x 0.7). However, since the contract for the cash loan between the plaintiff and pairs of ready-mixed still remains valid, the contract for the loan of this case between the plaintiff and pairs of Non-party 1 is still valid, it shall bear the plaintiff's obligations such as interest and delayed payment based on the rate of 4,50,000 won, interest and provisional attachment charges on the loan, interest and provisional attachment charges on the loan against the plaintiff separately from the above liability for damages. The court below did not accept the agreement between the plaintiff and the court below's 22,240,000 won out of the principal on March 27, 1994 and the damages for late payment of the loan 97, 197, 297.

4. The above damages liability due to the Defendant’s employer’s liability and the above loans owed by both parties with the same economic purpose are independent obligations arising out of different causes, or obligations with the same economic purpose overlapping, the so-called quasi-joint and several liability extinguished if one of the other parties’ obligations becomes extinct due to repayment, etc. In such a case where part of the other amount is extinguished due to repayment, etc. when one of the other’s obligations is in a relationship of quasi-joint and several liability, the first extinguished part shall be deemed not to be the part jointly and severally liable with other debtors, but the part jointly and severally liable for the other debtor, in light of the purport of the quasi-joint and several liability system that seeks to secure the payment of the entire amount of the other amount (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da50521, Nov. 23,

In this case, among the loans debt amounting to 4,500,000,000 won, the Defendant’s joint and several liability amounting to 4,50,000,000 won, the portion of the joint and several liability amounting to 3,150,000,000 won for the Defendant’s joint and several liability amounting to 1,350,000 won for the remainder of 1,350,000,000 won is the obligation solely borne by both parties. Thus, among the above loans debt amount of both parties’ joint and several liability amounting to 22,240,510,00 won for both parties’ joint and several liability amounting to 184,510,978 won for both parties’ joint and several liability amounting to 20,000 won, if the aggregate amount does not exceed the obligation amount solely borne by both parties’ joint and several liability amounting to 20,000 won for the Defendant’s repayment and offset.

The lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant’s liability for damages was extinguished with respect to the amount equivalent to 70% of the above repayment and set-off amount equivalent to the Defendant’s percentage of fault. However, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is rather favorable to the Defendant, and thus, it does not reverse the lower judgment on the ground that the Defendant appealed only. Therefore, this part

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)