The purpose of Article 37-3 (1) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act imposing oligopolistic stockholders liable for joint repayment for the debts related to the deposits, etc. of the mutual savings and finance company, and the burden of proof on the fact that oligopolistic stockholders exercised influence over the management of the mutual savings and

Where an oligopolistic stockholder under Article 39(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes has exercised influence over the management of a mutual savings and finance company and has caused fraudulent consequences, he/she shall be jointly and severally liable with a savings and finance company for obligations related to deposits, etc. under Article 37-3(1) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 6429, Mar. 28, 2001). The legislative purport of the above provision, which provides that an oligopolistic stockholder is jointly and severally liable for obligations related to such deposits, etc. of a savings and finance company, is to impose liability on an oligopolistic stockholder when he/she goes bankrupt by exercising his/her influence over the management of a savings and finance company. The above provision is not to impose liability on an oligopolistic stockholder who is not related to the insolvency of a savings and finance company. Thus, in cases of an oligopolistic stockholder who has caused fraudulent consequences by exercising his/her influence over the management of a savings and finance company, it shall be deemed that he/she is jointly and severally liable with a savings and finance company.

Article 37-3 (1) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 6429 of March 28, 2001) (see current Article 37-3 (2) of the Mutual Savings Banks Act), Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

Constitutional Court en banc Order 200Hun-Ga5, 6, 2001Hun-Ga26, 2000Hun-Ba34, 2002Hun-Ba3, 7, 9, 12 Decided August 29, 2002 (Hun-Ga72, 710)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1484 decided May 1, 200

New World Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na7868 delivered on August 17, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal shall be deemed to include the first and fourth points.

Where an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6429, Mar. 28, 2001; hereinafter “mutual savings bank”) exercises influence on the management of a mutual savings bank (hereinafter “mutual savings bank”), and results in bad faith, he/she shall be jointly and severally liable with a savings bank under Article 37-3(1) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act (amended by Act No. 6429, Mar. 28, 2001; hereinafter “mutual savings bank”). The legislative purport of the above provision, which provides a joint and several liability for repayment, is to impose liability on an oligopolistic shareholder when the savings bank goes bankrupt and causes insolvency of the savings bank. It is not to impose liability on an oligopolistic shareholder who is not related to the insolvency of the savings bank, so the above provision should be deemed to be jointly and severally liable with the Constitutional Court’s order to exercise its influence on the management of the savings bank or to exercise its influence on the management of an oligopolistic shareholder. 200 20.

After citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the facts as indicated in its holding, and determined that it is difficult to view that the Defendant, as an oligopolistic shareholder of the new World Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the “new World Savings and Finance Company”), owned a large number of stocks beyond exercising shareholder rights in the course of making decisions on the appointment of executive officers or major agenda handling, etc. at the general meeting of stockholders of the new World Savings and Finance Company, thereby controlling the general meeting of stockholders; and that it was difficult to view that the Defendant caused the result of insolvency to the new World Savings and Finance Company by exercising influence over the management of the new World

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 37-3 (1) of the former Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, or by mismisunderstanding facts

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)