(a) If the debtor has borrowed money in excess of the maximum amount of the debt without prior consent of the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's obligation, the breach

(b) Acts and crimes committed by mutual savings and finance companies over several times to the same person;

A. In a case where a third party has agreed on the establishment of a right to collateral security and completed the registration on behalf of the debtor with regard to the real estate owned by the third party, the creditor and the debtor may borrow and lend money within the limit and there is no need to obtain the consent of the person who has created the right to collateral security at each time of lending and lending, barring any special circumstances, and even if lending and lending are made in excess of the limit, the person who has created the right to collateral security shall be held liable for warranty only within the limit. Thus, even if prior consent of the person who has created the right to collateral security is unnecessary even

B. Notwithstanding the fact that mutual savings and finance companies cannot make a loan to the same person in excess of KRW 20,00,000,000, each of the above excess loans constitutes a practical concurrent crime, since the mutual savings and finance companies extended 200,000,000 won to the same debtor over 10 times, even if the loan was made in the name of another person, if it is recognized that each loan was made by the same debtor as the same debtor as the security of the establishment of a new mortgage, the above loan act is in violation of Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act and is established at each time when the loan exceeds KRW 20,00,000,00,000.

A. Article 35(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 357 of the Civil Act; Article 37 of the Criminal Act; Articles 12 and 39(4)2 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Act; Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings and Finance Act;

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No2621 delivered on September 2, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Appeal:

Unless there are special circumstances, creditors and debtors may borrow and lend money within the limits of the maximum amount of debt for the debtor with respect to real estate owned by the third party and obtain the consent of the person who has created the right to collateral security at each time of lending and lending. Even though the person who has created the right to collateral security has a warranty liability for the lending and lending exceeding the maximum amount, it is interpreted that prior consent of the person who has created the right to collateral security is unnecessary even in this case. In this regard, the judgment of the court below did not accept the decision of the court below that the prior consent of the person who has established the right to collateral security is not required even if the third party borrowed money from the mutual savings and finance company of the third party as collateral and borrowed money from the non-indicted 1,60,000 won (No. 1) and 50,000,000 won (No. 2) with respect to the real estate owned by the third party. The judgment below did not accept the prior approval of the crime of breach of trust by the defendant 1 as well as the records.

2. As to the appeal on Defendant B’s display

According to the facts established by the court below, the mutual savings and finance company cannot make a loan to the same person in excess of 20,000,000 won (see Article 12 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). However, Defendant 2 loaned 20,000 won to Defendant 1 on March 4, 1981, while Defendant 1 was in charge of the business of Samsan Mutual Savings and Finance Company, and extended 20,000 won to Defendant 1 on March 4, 1981, 6th class of the same month, 12th class of the same month, Kim Jong-man, 12th class of the same month, April 9 of the same year, 5.21 class of the same year, 200,000 won, total of 180,000,000 won, and on July 5 of the same year.

According to the records, since it is reasonable that Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were registered as collateral and each of the above loans was made as collateral, all of the above loans are acts against Defendant 1 and are in conflict with the above Article of the above Act, and each of the above above loans is established at the time of excess loans exceeding KRW 20,000,00,00, and the court below's decision is also justifiable that the above excessive loans are actually concurrent crimes. On the contrary of this opinion, the theory of lawsuit claiming that the above excessive loans are a crime of comprehensive concurrent crimes is not adopted, and the argument in the sentencing division of the above case is not a legitimate ground for objection, and there is no clear theory of lawsuit as to the sentencing division of the above case.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)