Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Dong-dong, Attorneys Kim Du-hwan, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Law Firm Barun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 25, 2011

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Du13739 Decided October 7, 2010

1. The part against Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in excess of the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the corresponding part is dismissed.

The Plaintiff

(a) Defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally 354,972,400 won and 5% per annum from June 19, 2009 to October 7, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

B. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 jointly and severally with 110,791,857 won and 5% per annum from June 19, 2009 to August 17, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment;

(c) Defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally 475,145,422 won and 5% per annum from June 19, 2009 to August 17, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

D. Defendant 1’s 30,780,369 won and 5% per annum from June 19, 2009 to August 17, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

sub-payment.

2. The appeal by Defendant 3 and the remaining appeal by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation cost between the plaintiff and the defendant 1, 80% is borne by the plaintiff, 20% is borne by the above defendant, 80% among the total litigation cost between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 is borne by the plaintiff, and 20% is borne by the above defendant, 90% among the total litigation cost between the plaintiff and the defendant 4 is borne by the plaintiff, 10% is borne by the above defendant, and the appeal cost between the plaintiff and the defendant 3 is borne by

The Plaintiff

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 2,231,315,360 won;

2. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 jointly and severally, KRW 3,487,870,236; and Defendant 4 jointly and severally with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, whichever is less than 2,403,254,272 of the above amount;

3. Defendant 1: 10,460,000 won;

And each of them shall pay 20% interest per annum from June 19, 2009 to the day of full payment.

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

[In the absence of dispute over evidence] Facts No. 1 through 18, 123 (including various numbers), Eul's evidence No. 1 through 56, 64 through 71, Eul's evidence No. 1-1 through 16, 2 through 15, 17-1, 2, 18, 20, 27 through 33, 34-1, 2, 3, 35 through 47, 48, 49, 50-1, 2, 51, 52-1, 2, 3, 53-1, 2, 54, 54, 55-1, 23, 56, 91 through 47, 97, 96-1, 96, 97, 97-4, 97, 90-1, 96, 96-2, 97, 96-4, 97

A. The relationship between the parties

(1) The Plaintiff is a community credit cooperative established on July 16, 1980 (the name of March 13, 2008 was changed to the present one) and is a non-profit corporation whose main business is to receive deposits and installment savings, and to provide loans to members from credit cooperatives members.

From March 18, 1998 to April 21, 2004, Defendant 1 served as the chief director of the Plaintiff’s non-permanent work (the non-standing chief director shall not be paid remuneration, but the non-standing chief director shall be 30,000 won/day from 1998 to 2000, 60,000 won/day from 2001 to 2002, and 120,000 won/day from 2003, and the Plaintiff was working as a full-time chief director by amending the articles of incorporation (the state of February 6, 2009).

Defendant 2 was dismissed from his position for about four months from April 1, 1999 to June 15, 2006 by the Plaintiff’s Federation’s regular director (not an executive of the Plaintiff’s Treasury but an employee); Defendant 2 was suspended from office for three months from April 22, 2004 to July 21, 2004 during the period of office; and was released from his position for four months from July 22, 2004 to November 25, 2004.

Defendant 3, from March 1998 to May 16, 2004, worked as the non-permanent chief director (the vice chief director shall act as the chief director pursuant to Article 33 of the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff’s treasury; the vice chief shall attend a meeting of the board of directors to deliberate and decide on agenda items, and when conducting a self-evaluation at the time of loan, he shall take charge of the appraisal of collateral. The Plaintiff’s treasury shall act as the chief director of the Plaintiff’s treasury from March 4, 2004 to February 16, 2008. The Plaintiff’s treasury held office as the non-permanent chief director of the Plaintiff’s treasury from June 4, 2004 to February 16, 2008.

(v) Defendant 4 was employed as a daily employee in the Plaintiff’s Treasury on June 16, 199, and was assigned as a regular employee on July 1, 2002, and thereafter served as the head of the Plaintiff’s Treasury from that time until October 20, 2006 (from June 16, 1999 to June 30, 2002, Defendant 4 was in charge of the business of receiving deposits or withdrawals mainly from customers, and was subject to suspension of duties for three months from April 22, 2004 to July 21, 2004 during the term of office, and was released from his position for about four months from July 22, 2004 to November 25, 204.

B. The act of embezzlement and breach of trust by Nonparty 11 and the disposition of the accident resulting therefrom

(1) From November 13, 1989 to April 10, 199, Nonparty 1, while working as the head of the Plaintiff’s treasury, was in charge of the affairs of the Plaintiff’s treasury, including the management of funds and loans. From around 1995, it was impossible to repay the Plaintiff’s shares by taking account of a large amount of losses incurred by investing shares in the money loaned from the Plaintiff. As the Plaintiff’s member’s name resulted in a loan of KRW 1.165 million on 12 occasions between April 13, 1996 and January 29, 199, Nonparty 11’s equity investment and personal debt repayment, etc., and embezzled the total amount of KRW 1.165 million on 12 occasions between January 13, 199 and January 29, Nonparty 111, Nonparty 200,000,000 won, and Nonparty 1,519.36 billion won, respectively, under the Plaintiff’s name of 19.

The Gyeonggi-do Branch of the Do Council of National Assembly (hereinafter referred to as the "Federation") conducted an occasional audit of the Plaintiff’s Treasury from April 19, 199 to April 24, 199, and discovered Nonparty 11’s embezzlement and breach of trust, and demanded the Plaintiff to obtain additional collateral in relation to Nonparty 11’s loan and recover the loan early.

Defendant 1, along with Nonparty 17, Nonparty 18, and Nonparty 11, on March 30, 199, jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of Nonparty 11 (Provided, That Nonparty 11 did not stand jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of his own name). On the other hand, around April 21, 1999, the Plaintiff was jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of Nonparty 11 in Suwon-si (number 3 omitted), owned by Nonparty 19 (number 1 omitted), owned by Nonparty 19 (number 2 omitted); Nonparty 163 square meters (number 4 omitted); Nonparty 163 square meters on Defendant 1’s own property; 20 million won on the 3rd land (number 5 omitted); Nonparty 16, Defendant 14, Defendant 156, Defendant 14, and Defendant 15, respectively, respectively, on the 19th anniversary of the maximum debt amount of Defendant 11, Defendant 1500 million won on the 3rd land (number 5 omitted);

C. Termination and cancellation of the first and second mortgages of this case

(1) On June 21, 2002, Defendant 1, at the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s depository, sold part of each of the above real estate owned by Defendant 1 and Nonparty 12, presented as the agenda items the termination of the instant No. 1 and 2 collateral security. On the same day, the Plaintiff’s depository was decided to the effect that the termination of the instant No. 2 collateral security established on the real estate owned by Nonparty 12 was made. Accordingly, the instant No. 2 collateral security was cancelled on May 6, 2003 due to the termination on May 2, 2003.

on June 13, 2003, the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s depository presented the agenda to the effect that the ownership of the forest (number 1 omitted), forest (number 2 omitted), forest land (number 2 omitted), and forest land owned by Nonparty 11 is transferred to the Plaintiff’s depository, and that the loan claims of Nonparty 11 are disposed of in full bad debts. The Plaintiff’s depository was resolved on the same day.

On December 16, 2003, Defendant 2: (a) the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s Treasury reported to the effect that “The principal amount of KRW 50 million out of the loans in the name of Nonparty 11 (number 1 omitted); (b) the ownership of the forest (number 2 omitted); and (c) the ownership of the forest in the name of Nonparty 11 was transferred to the Plaintiff’s Treasury on October 17, 2003; and instead, the principal amount of KRW 5 million was repaid out of the loans in the name of Nonparty 11; and (d) the amount collected by selling Nonparty 19-owned ( Address 2 omitted) and Nonparty 11-owned ( Address 1 omitted), out of the loans in the name of Nonparty 16, 35,259,850 out of the outstanding principal amount of the loans in the name of Nonparty 116, the outstanding principal amount of the loans shall be depreciated as bad debts, interest, overdue interest, and 749,850 won.”

On January 28, 2004, Defendant 1 presented an agenda to the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s Federation to the effect that all of the instant first mortgage established on each real estate owned by Defendant 1 should be terminated, and the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s Federation made a resolution on the same day. Accordingly, the instant first mortgage was cancelled on the same day as the date of termination on February 11, 2004.

(d) A loan in violation of the loan limit regulations for the same person;

(1) According to Article 23 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19114, Nov. 4, 2005; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Community Credit Cooperatives”), loans to the same person shall not exceed 10/100 of the total amount of investments and reserve funds of the relevant community, except where approval is granted by the president of the Federation (the total amount of the Plaintiff’s investments and reserve funds as of the end of December 2003 shall be KRW 452,938,74 (the total amount of the Plaintiff’s investments and reserve funds of KRW 275,721,212 + KRW 46,905,057 + KRW 58,615,615 + KRW 200,000,000,000,000 won, more than KRW 45 billion,500,000,000,000 won in total assets of the Federation).

Shebly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, without obtaining prior approval from the president of the Federation from February 28, 2001 to April 19, 2004, extended loans in violation of the provision on the lending limit to the same person to 32 non-party 13 and others on 144 occasions, respectively, by means of lending in the name of a family member or relative or any other person. Since July 1, 2002, Defendant 4 was involved in the loans in violation of the above provision on the lending limit as the head of the Plaintiff’s treasury.

Of the loans in violation of the provisions on the lending limit of the same person, the total amount of KRW 3,135,85,85,937, overdue interest, overdue interest of KRW 1,478,229,361, etc. as stated in attached Table 1, among the loans in violation of the provisions on the lending limit of the same person as above, the above defendants have not been paid. The above defendants took part in the loans such as obtaining approval from Defendant 4 as the Minister of Finance and Economy from among the loans in violation of the provisions on the lending limit of the same person whose principal and interest have not been repaid. On the other hand, from among the loans in violation of the lending limit of the same person whose principal and interest have not been repaid, the above defendants took part in the loans such as granting approval to the lending document as the Minister of Finance and Economy 1 7 through 13,15,17, 17, 222 through 32, 35, 37 through 447, 48, 49, the principal and interest interest have not been repaid.

(e) A loan with no security acquired;

On November 16, 2001, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 loaned KRW 10 million to Nonparty 110 as the type of secured loan. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 performed the loan without obtaining any security, such as entering into a mortgage contract. As to the loan, the Plaintiff was unable to recover KRW 4,310,00,000, including ordinary interest of KRW 1,827,400 and overdue interest of KRW 2,482,60. After all, the said Defendants exempted and treated the loan.

(f) A secured loan that fails to appraise a security;

From March 29, 200 to November 13, 2002, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 offered a loan as shown in attached Table 2 to 12, including Nonparty 111, etc., without giving an appraisal of a security. As to each loan, the Plaintiff did not receive reimbursement of KRW 180,893,120 in total, including the principal amount of KRW 86,569,067, normal interest and overdue interest, and KRW 94,324,053, as shown in attached Table 2. After all, the said Defendants reduced or exempted the loan.

G. A loan against Nonparty 112

On May 21, 2003, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 offered a loan to Nonparty 112 on a security basis, assessed the amount of KRW 95 million with a size of KRW 280,00,000,000 owned by Nonparty 112 based on their own appraisal, and offered a loan of KRW 65,00,00,000,000,000. However, with respect to the loan, the Plaintiff failed to receive reimbursement of KRW 36,298,50,000. After all, the said Defendants were treated as reduction or exemption.

(h) Changes in the collection order and exemption from interest;

(1) According to the Credit Operational Manual for community credit cooperatives (see attached Form 6), the amount of recovery of claims shall, in principle, be appropriated in the order of expenses, overdue interests, normal interests, and principal, but a certain amount of claims such as claims deemed impossible to be recovered may be appropriated for the amount of recovery of claims, by obtaining approval from the board of directors, either the principal, interest, or the interest order, or the overdue interest shall be reduced or exempted.

D. However, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, as indicated in Table 3 No. 1 on January 2, 2002 without the approval of the board of directors, dealt with the loans of Nonparty 126, as indicated in Table 3 attached hereto, by changing the collection order for the loans of Nonparty 127 on January 3, 2002, and by reducing each of the loans amounting to KRW 3,268,980 (= Nonparty 1262,861,070 + KRW 127,910).

Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4, without the approval of the board of directors, dealt with the loans of Nonparty 113 as indicated in the same Table No. 3 on December 3, 2002, and the loans of Nonparty 114 as indicated in the same Table No. 4 on January 30, 204, as indicated in the same Table No. 5 on March 11, 2004, respectively, changed the collection order for the loans of Nonparty 115 as indicated in the same Table No. 5 on March 11, 2004, and changed the collection order for the loans of Nonparty 15 on the total amount of normal interest (= Nonparty 13, 110,620 + Nonparty 1142,659,450 + Nonparty 1153,74,90 won).

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4, without the approval of the board of directors and the president on March 4, 2003, changed the collection order with respect to the loans of Nonparty 116, and reduced or exempted the total of KRW 19,754,200 in normal interest and overdue interest (i.e., average interest + KRW 12,246,710 + overdue interest + KRW 7,507,490).

(i) Loss caused by futures option investment in surplus funds; and

From August 1, 2002 to September 2, 2002, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 invested KRW 200,000 of the Plaintiff’s Treasury in futures option through Nonparty 15 (one of the nominal holders of loans to Nonparty 11) (one of the nominal holders of loans to Nonparty 11) who is an employee of the teaching right company. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Treasury suffered loss of the principal amount of KRW 73,65,00.

(1) Defendant 1 used 1,730,350 won in cash in the budget of the Plaintiff’s Treasury without any evidence as entertainment expenses, including KRW 730,350 in the year 2002, KRW 800,000 in the year 2003, and KRW 200,000 in the year 204.

B. The Defendant 2 used 9,564,090 won in cash for the total of KRW 6,214,090 in the budget of the Plaintiff’s Treasury in 2002, KRW 3050,000 in the year 2003, and KRW 300,000 in the year 204 without any evidentiary materials as entertainment expenses.

Defendant 4 used 300,000 won in cash in 2003 out of the budget of the Plaintiff’s Treasury without any evidentiary materials as entertainment expenses.

(k) Purchasing merchandise coupons;

Defendant 1 purchased gift certificates of KRW 1.5 million on July 29, 2002, merchandise coupons of KRW 2 million on September 18, 2002, merchandise coupons of KRW 1.0 million on December 27, 2002, merchandise coupons of KRW 3 million on January 27, 2003, merchandise coupons of KRW 1.96 million on September 18, 2003, merchandise coupons of KRW 1.96 million on September 18, 2003, merchandise coupons of KRW 1.5 million on January 19, 2004, and used them in whole, but did not disclose their use.

(l) Expenditure of oil support expenses for vehicles owned by individuals;

From 2002 to 2004, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 used not only oil expenses, but also the sum of KRW 11,945,709, including automobile maintenance fees and penalties, from the Plaintiff’s treasury budget, as well as the fuel expenses for vehicles owned by the said Defendants (i.e., fuel expenses for Defendant 1 + KRW 7,435,952 + KRW 762,967 + KRW 767 of the fuel support expenses for Defendant 2 + KRW 3,746,790 of the oil support expenses for Defendant 4’s fuel support for Defendant 4 + KRW 3,746,790 of the appraisal and assessment, and the said amount was excluding oil support expenses, expressway transit expenses, travel expenses, and transportation expenses, etc.). Provided, That among the above funds, the amount used after July 1, 2002 by Defendant 4 as an employee of the Plaintiff’s treasury.

2. Claim for damages arising from the termination of the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security) of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendants, in violation of the duty of loyalty and the duty of good faith to be borne by the officers and employees of the Plaintiff’s Federation, unfairly terminate the instant 1-2-mortgage as collateral, while at the same time, the unredeemed Kim Jong-sung’s principal was depreciated, and the interest and overdue interest accrued therefrom were reduced. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 2,231,315,360, the sum of the interest and overdue interest accrued on the outstanding principal, 740, 76,749, 680, 766, 749, 680, and 749,825,530, from the bad debt redemption to April 17, 2009, and the outstanding principal and interest accrued from the bad debt redemption to April 17, 2009. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

(i) the relevant laws, regulations, articles of incorporation, and regulations (as stated in [Attachment 6]

The former Community Credit Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 7658, Aug. 4, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "former Community Credit Cooperatives Act") provides that the executives of a credit cooperative shall comply with this Act, orders issued under this Act, the articles of incorporation and regulations, and the resolution of a general meeting and the board of directors, and shall perform their duties in good faith for the credit cooperative (Article 23(1)). The executives shall be jointly and severally liable for damages to the credit cooperative caused by intention or negligence (in the case of a non-standing executive, intentional or gross negligence) in performing their duties (Article 23(2)).

The articles of incorporation of a community credit cooperative shall comply with the law, age, rules, articles of incorporation, regulations, and the resolution of a general meeting or the board of directors, and shall perform its duties in good faith for a credit cooperative (Article 46(1)), and employees shall be liable for damages inflicted on a credit cooperative or any other person by intention or gross negligence in performing their duties (Article 46(2)).

According to the regulations on the organization of community credit cooperatives, employees shall be classified into a person in charge and team members (referring to a team member in the case of a team task, and an employee in the case of a division or a director-general), and the person in charge shall be the full-time director of a general affairs treasury, one regular director of a general affairs treasury, the head of a division or a director-general of a credit cooperative (hereinafter referred to as "working officer") and the head of a director, the head of a team (in the case of a team task, referring to the head of a team and the head of a division or a director in the case of a division or a director-general). (Article 7(2). A working officer shall assist the chairperson (including a full-time director) and shall direct and supervise his/her duties (Article 9(1).

According to Section 2 of Section 7 of Part V of the Credit Operating Manual (Evidence 8) of the Plaintiff’s Treasury, even if it is based on the legal procedures such as bankruptcy proceedings and auction against the debtor, or any other possible recovery method, it is impossible to recover the claims, or it is impossible to exercise the claims due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the invalidity of the cause of the establishment of the claims, or other legal defects, or it is impossible to recover the collected expenses in excess of the recovered amount, or in the case of the bonds, etc. which fall under the grounds for depreciation under the Corporate Tax Act or the chief director deems impossible to recover due to the circumstances corresponding to the above circumstances, the claims shall be depreciated as bad debts for the soundness of the assets. In order to redeem the bad debts of the claims, it shall undergo the procedures such as conducting a property investigation into the persons

Meanwhile, according to the former Regulations on Credit Business (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1, Dec. 1, 2003; No. 61, No. 1, No. 61, No. 2003) of the Plaintiff’s Federation (hereinafter “Credit Business Regulations”), the president shall frequently grasp the current status of the security and cope with changes in circumstances, and if necessary, such as where the value of the security is significantly lowered, he/she shall require the addition of the security (Article 92(1)). If the value of the security is excessive compared to the remaining claim due to repayment of the loan or other reasons, a part of the right to collateral security may be terminated if there is no hindrance to the preservation of claims even if part of the mortgage

D. Whether Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and Defendant 2 are liable for damages

① Examining the circumstances that real estate owned by Defendant 12 was purchased or sold on the other hand by Defendant 12, and as at the time of termination of the loan regulations, Defendant 1 presented to the board of directors the agenda that Defendant 2 terminated the instant loan No. 1 and No. 2 on June 21, 202, and made a resolution that the board of directors would cancel the instant loan No. 11 on the same day, and that the Plaintiff’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s trust.

As to this, Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and Defendant 2 did not intend to recover the loans from Nonparty 11 on each of the real estate owned by them, but provided the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative with security formally until the Plaintiff’s bad debt allowance is accumulated to the extent that the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative’s retirement at the time of the retirement due to Nonparty 1’s embezzlement and breach of trust, and thus, Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and Defendant 2 provided the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative with security formally until the Plaintiff’s bad debt allowance is accumulated to the extent that the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative’s retirement is prevented and it is difficult to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative’s establishment of the first and second collateral security right as bad faith and the termination of the first and second collateral security right was fully accumulated. However, Defendant 1 and the second collateral security right of this case was not set up, Defendant 2’s evidence No. 64, 65, 765, 97, 97, 197, and 2, and Defendant 2’s revocation of the collateral security right of this case.

Defendant 2 asserted to the effect that the claim for the loan of Nonparty 11, which is the claim secured by the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) of this case, is null and void under a false loan agreement, and thus, the claim is also null and void. However, it is difficult to view that the claim for the loan of Nonparty 11 is null and void on the sole ground that Nonparty 11 borrowed the loan under the name of others. Thus, Defendant 2’

In addition, Defendant 2 asserts that he is exempted from liability under Article 9(2) of the Plaintiff’s Credit Guarantee Business Regulations, merely because he merely executed the above resolution of the board of directors as a working-level. In addition, Defendant 2 did not participate in the resolution of the board of directors, but did not participate in the resolution of the board of directors. However, Defendant 2 is in the position of executing the resolution of the board of directors, and reported the contents related thereto to the board of directors. The Plaintiff’s Credit Business Regulations only provide that “If he performs his duty of care as a good manager, such as defects in handling, intentional or gross negligence in follow-up management, even if the loans fall short of credit properly implemented under the relevant regulations, he shall be exempted from liability if he performs his duty of care as a good manager (Article 9(2) of the New Business Regulations). However, the Plaintiff’s Credit Guarantee Business Regulations is not against the Plaintiff’s duty of care as a good manager or a good manager of credit management, which was established on real estate owned by Defendant 1, etc. (Article 12).

Defendant 2, at the regular meeting of the board of directors on February 21, 2004, reported and approved the contents of the resolution of the board of directors in 2003 on the loans, etc. to Nonparty 11 at the regular meeting of the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s Federation. Accordingly, Defendant 2 asserts that he is not liable for it. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading of the Plaintiff’s Dop, Eul and Dopho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ri’s.

【Defendant 4’s Liability for Damages

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 114-7, 8, 8, and 7 of the evidence No. 114-7 and the argument, it is recognized that Defendant 4 was in custody of the Plaintiff’s corporate seal and engaged in the registration of termination of the instant No. 2-mortgage pursuant to the resolution of the board of directors on June 21, 2002 by the Plaintiff’s Federation, which decided to terminate the instant No. 2-mortgage, and that the meeting minutes of the board of directors were prepared at the time of June 13, 2003. According to the above regulations of the organization of community credit cooperatives, Defendant 4 is recognized to have been in charge of assisting the managing director who is a working-level director of the Plaintiff’s Federation, and in charge of supervising and supervising employees under his control, it is difficult to view that Defendant 4 was involved in the reduction and exemption of the principal and interest of the instant No. 1 and No. 2-mortgage and the settlement of the non-party 11 loans due to intention or gross negligence.

m. Calculation of the damages suffered by the plaintiff

It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s loss incurred due to the wrongful termination of the right to collateral security was equivalent to the secured debt within the scope of the maximum debt amount at the time of termination, within the value of the collateral.

However, according to the market price appraisal by the court of the first instance, around May 2, 2003, which was around the time when the second right to collateral security was terminated, it was found that the market price of the area of 4,261 square meters and 882 square meters prior to the 1,427,692,000 square meters owned by the non-party 12, which was around May 2, 2003, which was around the time when the second right to collateral security was established, was totaled of 1,427,692,00. As a security for the non-party 11's claim for the above land, each of the above land was set up as a joint collateral, and the non-party 11's claim for the loans was not repaid at least the principal amount of 714,740,150, interest and overdue interest, and 749,825,530,000 won, which is the maximum debt amount of the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the termination of the second right to collateral security.

Meanwhile, according to the market price appraisal by the court of the first instance, around February 11, 2004, the first instance court: (a) around 3, 2004, the first instance court: (b) around 163С-si (number 10 omitted); (c) the market price of 202,935,00 won; (d) the second floor on the third ground, other than 95,135,000 won, the market price of 135,000 Won-si; (f) the underground floor of 00,000 Won-si (number 6 omitted); (c) the first 3,00,00 won-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-1,50 won-mortgage-mortgage-1,70,000 won-mortgage-mortgage-1,70,000 won-mortgage-mortgage-1,70,000 won-mortgage-mortgage-1,703,000 won-mortgage-1,000 won-mortgage-14,03, respectively.

(v) the filing of a complaint;

Therefore, Defendants 1, 2, and 3 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 61,7170,000 (=300 million + KRW 31,7170,00) incurred by the Plaintiff as above.

3. Claims for damages due to loans in violation of the lending limit by the same person;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 committed loans in violation of the limit on loans to the same person and thereby incurred losses equivalent to the same amount due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive reimbursement of KRW 3,135,858,218 as stated in attached Table 1, the sum of KRW 1,742,920, KRW 1,65,85,85,937, overdue interest of KRW 1,478,229,361, and KRW 3,135,858,218. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 jointly and severally and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, and Defendant 4 and jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff 2,327,985,344, and delay damages for loans after the Plaintiff worked as the head of the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative.

B. Determination

(i)Criteria for determination

Where the president, etc. of a community credit cooperative has neglected to perform his/her duties, such as lending money in excess of the limit of loans to the same person at the time of his/her employment and failing to secure sufficient collateral, thereby causing losses to prevent a community credit cooperative from collecting loans, the president, etc. shall be liable for damages equivalent to the amount exceeding the limit of loans extended to the same person out of loans not collected to the community credit cooperative pursuant to Article 23(2) of the former Community Credit Cooperatives Act (Article 25(2) of the current Community Credit Cooperatives

D. Whether and to the extent of liability for damages by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 provided loans in violation of the provision on the lending limit to 32 persons, including Nonparty 13, etc. on 144 occasions by means of lending money under the name of a family member or relative, etc. without the prior approval of the president of the Federation. Since July 1, 2002, Defendant 4 participated in the loans in violation of the provision on the lending limit to the Plaintiff’s treasury as the chief of the division of the Plaintiff’s treasury. From July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff participated in the loans in violation of the above provision on the lending limit to 1,742,920, average interest 1,65,85,85,937, overdue interest 1,478,29,361, total of 3,135,858,218 won, as shown in Table 1, out of the loans in violation of the provision on the lending limit

그런데 갑 제1, 2, 4, 18 내지 66, 115, 119호증(이상 가지번호 포함), 을나 제97호증, 을다 제1호증의 90의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면 별표1의 각 대출금 중 대출한도를 초과한 금액은 별표1-1의 기재와 같이 합계 4,176,512,480원[소외 13에 대하여 합계 17억 8,000만 원, 소외 117에 대하여 3억 4,000만 원, 소외 118에 대하여 3억 2,000만 원, 소외 119에 대하여 합계 10억 9,300만 원, ◇◇테크에 대하여 합계 2억 원, 소외 120에 대하여 3,000만 원, 소외 121에 대하여 1,000만 원, 소외 122에 대하여 93,878,480원, 소외 123에 대하여 109,634,000원, 소외 124에 대하여 2억 원]이고, 그로 인하여 원고가 대출한도를 초과한 각 대출금에 관하여 원금 348,584원 및 정상이자 1,229,782,562원, 연체이자 1,091,172,464원 등 원리금 합계 2,321,521,048원을 상환받지 못한 사실, 그런데 별표1-1의 기재와 같이 대출한도를 초과한 각 대출금을 대출함에 있어서 피고 1, 피고 2, 피고 4(단, 피고 4는 그가 관여하였음이 인정되는 대출부분에 한한다)는 ① 소외 13에게 23건 합계 29억 7,000만 원(한도초과액 2,385,759,000원)을 대여하면서 공시지가 합계 1,142,852,000원, 탁상감정가가 합계 2,142,489,000원인 담보만을 확보하고, 그 중 별표1-1 순번 1, 2, 7 내지 12 기재 각 대출 당시 담보물에 대하여 감정평가를 하지도 아니한 채 2003. 6. 30. 기준 원고 금고의 총자산 29,990,692,102원의 약 10%에 해당하는 금원을 소외 13에게 대출하였고, ② 소외 117에게 4건 합계 5억 7,200만 원(한도 초과액 3억 7,200만 원)을 대출하면서 금고 자체 감정가 1억 원, 공시지가 22,535,000원, 탁상감정가 131,220,000원인 담보만을 확보하고, 그 중 같은 표 순번 16, 17 기재 각 대출에 대하여는 담보를 확보하지 아니한 채 대출하였으며, ③ 소외 118에게 3건 합계 5억 2,000만 원(한도 초과액 320,263,000원)을 대출하면서 공시지가 65,876,000원, 탁상감정가 152,640,000원인 담보만을 확보하고, 대출 당시 그 담보에 대하여 감정평가조차 하지 아니하였고, ④ 소외 119에게 13건 합계 12억 9,300만 원(한도초과액 1,088,557,000원)을 대출하면서 공시지가 합계 123,979,000원, 탁상감정가 합계 4억 7,400만 원인 담보만을 확보하고, 그 중 같은 표 순번 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33 기재 각 대출 당시에는 담보물에 대한 감정평가도 하지 아니하였으며, ⑤ ◇◇테크에게 2건 합계 4억 원(한도초과액 2억 원)을 대출하면서 자체감정가 2억 8,500만 원, 공시지가 166,402,000원, 탁상감정가 3억 2,600만 원인 담보만을 확보하였고, ⑥ 소외 120에게 6건 합계 4억 5,000만 원(한도초과액 241,085,000원)을 대출하면서 자체감정가 6억 원, 공시지가 2억 2,227만 원, 탁상감정가 5억 1,200만 원인 담보만을 확보하였으며, ⑦ 소외 121에게 13건 합계 2억 1,000만 원(한도초과액 10,116,000원)을 대출하면서 공시지가 합계 47,016,000원, 탁상감정가 9,580만 원인 담보만을 확보하였고 더욱이 대출 당시 그 담보들에 대하여 감정평가를 하지 아니하였으며, ⑧ 소외 122에게 4건 합계 323,878,000원(한도 초과액 123,878,000원)을 대출하면서 담보로 자체감정가 4억 5,100만 원, 공시지가 45,747,000원, 탁상감정가 4억 5,100만 원인 담보만을 확보하였고, ⑨ 소외 123에게 7건 합계 309,634,000원(한도초과액 109,634,000원)을 대출하면서 공시지가 8,000만 원, 탁상감정가 8,000만 원으로서 선순위 근저당권이 2,800만 원이 설정되어 있는 담보와 자체감정가 2억 4,000만 원이나 경매불능인 담보만을 확보하였으며, ⑩ 소외 124에게 2건 합계 5억 원(한도초과액 3억 원)을 대출하면서 담보로 자체감정가 7억 5,000만 원, 공시지가 249,164,000원, 탁상감정가 3억 100만 원인 담보만을 확보한 사실, 별표1 기재와 같이 동일인 대출한도를 회피하기 위하여 차용인을 타인 명의로 하여 대출하여 주기도 한 사실, 원고 금고의 여신업무방법서에 의하면 기업대출의 경우에는 기업에 대한 신용평가를 하여야 함에도 ◇◇테크에 대해서는 신용평가 없이 기업여신 한도를 초과하여 대출하여 준 사실, 소외 13, 소외 117, 소외 125는 피고 2와 밀접한 관계에 있는 사람인 사실이 인정되는바, 이러한 인정사실에 의하면 피고 1, 피고 2, 피고 4는 고의 또는 중과실로 원고에 대한 선량한 관리자로서의 주의의무 또는 성실의무를 게을리하여 원고에게 별표1 기재 각 대출원리금 미상환액 중 별표1-1 기재와 같이 동일인 대출한도를 초과한 부분에 관한 원금 348,854원, 정상이자 1,229,782,562원, 연체이자 1,091,389,902원 등 합계 2,321,521,048원 상당의 손해[그 중 피고 4가 대출에 관여한 부분인 별표1-1 순번 7 내지 13, 15, 17, 25 내지 32, 35, 38, 39, 44, 47, 48, 49 기재 각 대출에 해당하는 금원은 원금 348,854원, 정상이자 876,974,370원, 연체이자 766,930,129원 등 합계 1,644,243,083원이다]를 입혔음이 인정된다.

Therefore, Defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff’s Treasury for KRW 2,321,521,048, the outstanding principal and interest on loans in excess of the loan limit of the same person, and Defendant 4 is jointly and severally liable to compensate for KRW 1,644,243,083, which constitute loans he/she participated among the above amounts.

【Judgment on the argument by Defendant 1, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 asserted that the provision on the restriction on the lending limit of the same person was prepared for the proper operation of community credit cooperatives themselves, and that the credit rating of the loan obligor is not made by directly considering the possibility of recovery of loan claims. Thus, even if the loan was made in excess of the loan limit of the same person, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as causing damage to the Plaintiff. However, as seen above, Defendant 1, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 offered a loan in violation of the credit business regulations of Plaintiff’s credit cooperative, such as lending a loan in excess of the loan limit of the same person, not securing sufficient security, appraisal of collateral, or lending without credit assessment to a legal entity. Accordingly, Defendant 1, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 suffered damage equivalent to KRW 2,321,521,048 in total of the loan principal and interest as shown in Table 1-1.

The above Defendants asserted that the above Defendants’ loans, which were somewhat aggressive for the Plaintiff’s safe, showed a large number of profits as a result of the Defendants’ aggressive loan, and that the principal was repaid and interest was paid for a considerable period of time. Such aggressive loan constitutes business judgment, and the above Defendants should be exempted. In addition, if an officer of ordinary community credit cooperatives performed his duties in good faith for the maximum interest of a credit cooperative according to appropriate procedures under the circumstances at the time, and the decision-making process and contents are not considerably unreasonable, his act is within the permissible scope of business judgment. However, in principle, the business judgment rule is not applicable to the act of an officer in violation of the laws and regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33609, Jul. 26, 2007). In light of Article 26(3) of the former Community Credit Cooperatives Act and Article 23 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, the Defendants’ above provision on the loans to the same person or its gross negligence is not applied to the above Defendants’ loan limit.

The above Defendants asserted that the bad debt depreciation is merely an internal accounting of the Plaintiff and the bad debt depreciation is not a debt exemption against the debtor, and thus the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative did not incur any loss. However, as seen earlier, the recognition of liability for damages on the grounds of the same person’s violation of the duty of care and good faith is due to the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to properly repay the principal and interest of the Plaintiff due to bad faith loans, and it is clear that the outstanding principal and interest of the Plaintiff constituted damages incurred by the Plaintiff. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit

The above Defendants asserted that the loan principal of a loan in violation of the loan limit by the same person and the total amount of the loan interest repaid exceeds the interest that can be paid when the principal of the loan was deposited in the Federation. However, the unredeemed loan interest constitutes damages suffered by the Plaintiff as the one-time profit, and the total amount of the loan interest repaid exceeds the interest that can be paid when the Federation deposited the principal of the loan in the Federation. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

Defendant 2 asserts that since the above Defendants obtained prior approval from the Federation through the computer network at the time of loan lending by the same person, they should be exempted from liability. However, as seen earlier, the Federation could not ascertain whether the above Defendants’ loan application by the above Defendants through the computer network alone was a loan exceeding the limit on the same person, since the above Defendants’ loan application by the said Defendants could not be considered to be a loan exceeding the limit on the loan amount by the same person. Thus, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Defendant 2 asserts that, as an employee of the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative, he/she should be exempted from liability pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Regulations on Credit Business of the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative because it merely performs his/her duties in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative. However, the above provision purports that, in cases where loans duly implemented pursuant to the relevant regulations are insufficient, such as handling defects or intentional or gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s credit management, it shall be exempted if he/she fulfills his/her duty of care as a good manager, such as

Defendant 4 asserted that the defendant 4 was responsible because he was in the position of the chief of the department in relation to the loan and did not participate in the loan. However, as seen earlier, the above defendant was recognized as the chief of the plaintiff's credit cooperative, the intermediary responsible person, and was involved in the loan of the plaintiff's credit cooperative, so the above defendant's above

4. Claims for damages due to non-acquisition of a security and non-performance of appraisal of a security; and

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not obtain a security while offering a loan to Nonparty 110, thereby causing losses equivalent to the same amount. In addition, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 185,203,120 won and delay damages therefrom, as shown in the attached Table 2, for the following reasons: (a) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not make an appraisal of the security; and (b) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not receive reimbursement of KRW 180,893,120 in total, including the loan principal, KRW 86,569,067; and (c) ordinary interest and overdue interest, KRW 94,324,053; and (d) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 185,203,120 won and delay damages.

B. Whether Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are liable for damages

Article 34(1) of the Regulations on Credit Business of the Plaintiff’s Treasury provides that when acquiring a security, a security shall be appraised without delay, and a residential building (including the case where a part of a building is used for a purpose other than residence) under Article 35 shall not exceed 100/120 of the effective value of the security: Provided, That in the case of an apartment, a prior rental deposit (excluding a small-sum deposit) shall be extended within the limit of 100/140 of the effective value of the real estate and a house other than a house with at least half of the appraised value.

However, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not set up a security against Nonparty 110 in violation of the above credit business regulations, and carried out a security loan against 12 persons including Nonparty 11, etc. as shown in the attached Table 2, and the Plaintiff did not provide an appraisal of the secured property as to the secured property. As to the loan against Nonparty 110, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not receive a reimbursement of KRW 4,310,00,00 in total, including ordinary interest of KRW 1,827,40,40 and overdue interest of KRW 2,482,60, and overdue interest of KRW 111 and 12 persons including Nonparty 11 did not receive a reimbursement of KRW 86,569,067, normal interest and overdue interest of KRW 94,324,530,120 as a manager of the Plaintiff’s duty of due care as a manager of the Plaintiff’s 21.

Therefore, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 185,203,120 (=4310,000 +180,893,120).

C. Determination on the assertion by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 asserted that the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative conducted its own appraisal in the case of loans specified in attached Table 2. However, it is difficult to recognize each of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 54, 55-1, 2, and 3 by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion is not acceptable.

5. Claim for damages due to excessive loans with respect to a secured loan against Nonparty 112

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4, who provided a secured loan to Nonparty 112, offered a collateral with a market price of KRW 67 million over a market price of KRW 90 million through their own appraisal, and offered a loan of KRW 65 million as security. Accordingly, the Plaintiff incurred damages equivalent to the same amount by failing to recover interest of KRW 360,29. Accordingly, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,298,509 as compensation for damages.

B. Determination

Inasmuch as the amount of self-appraisal of the above Defendants’ security falls short of the ex post facto appraisal, it is difficult to view that the above Defendants’ self-appraisal was made unlawful or unjust. Unlike other evidence to prove that the Defendants calculated the amount of the appraisal in the self-appraisal of a security, there is no reason to believe that the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

6. Claim for damages due to a voluntary change in the collection order or a voluntary reduction or exemption of interest;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, without the approval of the board of directors, changed the order of collection for each of the loans listed in the Nos. 1 and 2 attached Table 3 and reduced or exempted KRW 3,268,980 (= Nonparty 126 2,861,070 + Nonparty 127 407,910).

In addition, without the approval of the board of directors, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 changed their collection order for each of the loans listed in the Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of the same Table without the approval of the board of directors and reduced or exempted KRW 9,545,060 (= Nonparty 113,110,620 + Nonparty 1142,65,620 + Nonparty 1155,74,90 + KRW 115,774,90). The order of collection was changed for the loans listed in the No. 6 of the same Table, and reduced or exempted KRW 19,754,200 in normal interest and overdue interest (= normal interest 12,246,710 + overdue interest 7,507,490).

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to each of the above amounts (=3,268,980 +9,545,060 +19,754,200 + damages incurred therefrom) and the damages incurred therefrom (=29,29,260 won (=9,545,060 +19,754,200) and damages incurred therefrom jointly and severally with the above Defendants, respectively.

B. Determination

In order for the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative to be liable for damages to the loan-related parties on account of the outstanding principal and interest of the loan, the loan was made with unlawful and unjust evaluation of the debtor’s credit, financial status, repayment ability, etc. or without securing sufficient collateral. Thus, it is difficult to recover the principal and interest of the loan from the time of loan to collect the loan, or to collect the loan recoverable due to the failure to manage the collateral after the loan, etc., and thereby, the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative breached its duty of due care in implementing the loan or managing the loan, and thereby the damage should occur to the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative. It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff suffered any damage due to the fact that the loan-related parties, which is difficult to recover due to the ex post facto non-performing

7. Claims for damages due to improper operation of surplus funds; and

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 invested KRW 200 million in futures option in violation of relevant provisions regarding the management of surplus funds. The Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 74,402,00 in total, including the amount of the lost investment principal of KRW 73,65,000 and the amount equivalent to the amount of the deposit interest of the federation thereof. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 74,402,00 in compensation for damages and delay damages therefrom.

B. Whether Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are liable for damages

Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act provides that surplus funds of a credit cooperative may be deposited in the Federation, deposited in financial institutions, deposited in trust companies in trust companies, or purchased government bonds, local government bonds, and securities determined by the head of the Federation. Article 50 of the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative shall also be operated by depositing surplus funds of the credit cooperative in the Federation, depositing them in financial institutions, monetary trust in trust companies, or purchasing government bonds, local government bonds, and securities determined by the head of the Federation, but shall be used by financial institutions and companies

Nevertheless, as seen in the basic facts, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 do not fall under the management method of surplus funds as set forth in the former Enforcement Decree of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act and the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff’s Federation, and thereby making investments in futures options that are not safe, thereby performing their duties in good faith as the Plaintiff’s officers and employees. In so doing, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 incurred damages of KRW 74,402,000 in total, including the amount of loss of the invested principal and the amount of loss of KRW 73,65,000 in total, equivalent to the amount of loss of the deposits deposited by the Federation, and the amount of loss of KRW 74,402,00 in total. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 jointly

C. Determination on the assertion by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

Defendant 1 asserted to the effect that the above Defendants are not liable since other community credit cooperatives have invested surplus funds in futures options, etc. because the rate of deposit interest of the federation at the time is too low. However, Defendant 1’s assertion that Defendant 1 is insufficient to deem the above Defendants to be exempted from liability for damages incurred to the Plaintiff by investing surplus funds in violation of the relevant provisions. Thus, Defendant 1’s assertion

Defendant 2 asserted to the effect that Defendant 1, the chief director of the board of directors, was irrelevant to himself/herself because he/she made a decision and invested. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 2 was recognized to have participated in the execution of funds as a person in charge of the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative at the time. Thus, Defendant 2

In addition, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, at the occasional audit of the Federation, required the aforementioned Defendants to take measures in accordance with the results of the discussion of the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s Federation in the presence of self-audit, and accordingly, decided to terminate the issue of loss of investment as receiving a letter of intent not to make any investment again from the above Defendants, and thus, the said Defendants were exempted from liability. However, even if the Plaintiff’s Federation’s board of directors is written in the minutes of the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s Federation (No. 14) on April 11, 2003, the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s Federation did not have the authority to exempt the Defendants from liability for damages, and it is difficult to view that the above resolution of the board of directors is the purport of exempting the Defendants from liability for the loss of investment. Therefore, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

Defendant 2, even if Defendant 2 is liable for damages to the Plaintiff in relation to the above act of operating surplus funds, the instant lawsuit was filed only after the lapse of 3 years from the time when the Plaintiff became aware of the existence of the right to claim damages against Defendant 2 related thereto, and thus, this part of the right to claim damages against Defendant 2 expired by prescription. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the above Defendants on the ground of improper operation of surplus funds was based on the Plaintiff’s duty to faithfully perform its duties in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, and other guidelines, and thus, Defendant 2’s claim for damages was made on the ground of nonperformance of such duty, even if the Defendants were to faithfully perform their duties in breach of such duty, and thus, the statute of limitations is ten years, and the instant lawsuit was filed on the ground that it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed before 10 years from September 2, 2002, which was the date of termination of the

8. Claims for damages caused by improper execution of budget;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 used the total amount of KRW 11,594,40 as entertainment expenses without evidentiary documents such as corporate credit card sales slips or tax invoices from 2002 to 2004, and used the total amount of KRW 11,94,440 as cash for entertainment expenses in violation of the business plan and budgetary guidelines of the Plaintiff’s personal vehicle, in violation of the duties of faithfully performing the duties of faithfully and faithfully as the officers and employees of the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative, and thus, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, and jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above amount of KRW 23,540,549 (=1,5494,400 +1405,1405,149) and delay damages from the Plaintiff’s personal vehicle.

In addition, Defendant 1 purchased the amount of KRW 10,460,00 with the Plaintiff’s Treasury’s budget and used it in entirety without disclosing the source of use, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant 1 is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 10,460,00 and the damages for delay with respect thereto, as compensation for damages.

B. Determination

(1) The entertainment expense disbursement portion

From 202 to 2004, Defendant 1 used 1,730,350 won in total among the Plaintiff’s budget without any evidentiary data as entertainment expenses; Defendant 2 used 9,564,090 won in total; and Defendant 4 used 300,000 won in each of the following facts. According to the community credit cooperatives’ business plan and budget guidelines (Evidence 12-1 and 2), entertainment expenses exceeding KRW 50,000 in each time under the Corporate Tax Act can be treated as deductible expenses for the tax accounting, submission of corporate credit card sales slips or tax invoices. Thus, if entertainment expenses exceed KRW 50,000,000 are paid once, it shall be submitted as evidentiary data, and it shall be deemed that it may not be disbursed at a place such as high-class or private entertainment establishments. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this is without merit.

Doz. The expenditure of fuel support expenses for the sole possession of the vehicle

According to the community credit cooperatives business plan and budgetary guidelines (A evidence 12-1 and 2) that make it possible to provide actual expenses, such as oil expenses, parking fees, tolls, etc. in the event that there is no vehicle for business owned by the above Defendants for the performance of their duties. There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative owns the vehicle for business from 2002 to 2004. According to the overall purport of evidence 6-1, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 were jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the fuel subsidy for the above Defendants’ personal vehicle from 2002 to 2004, the total amount of the fuel subsidy for the above Defendants’ 11,945,709, which was paid from 205 to 207, the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative’s business plan and the above 94,706,74,767,79, and the above amount of the compensation for damages, which was not recognized by the Defendant’s credit cooperative.

【Defendant 1’s use of gift certificates

As seen in the basic facts that Defendant 1 purchased gift certificates in an aggregate of KRW 10,460,00 in the budget of the Plaintiff’s Treasury and used them in full without disclosing the source of use. According to such recognition facts, Defendant 1 is recognized to have embezzled all the above gift certificates, barring any special circumstance, and Defendant 1 is liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the gift certificates and the delayed payment thereof. As such, Defendant 1 is liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the gift certificates and the delayed payment damages.

As to this, Defendant 1 asserted that all of the above merchandise coupons were paid to the customer as entertainment expenses, but it is difficult to recognize the testimony of Nonparty 128 by the witness of the first instance trial, and there is no other evidence to recognize this, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

9. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Whether the plaintiff’s credit cooperative’s defense of exemption is legitimate by a resolution of the General Meeting of Representatives of February 5, 2005

(1) Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3’s assertion

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 agreed by all representatives present at the General Meeting of Representatives of the Plaintiff’s Federation on February 5, 2005, and decided that the Defendants were not liable with respect to the cause of the instant claim, such as the termination of the instant claim Nos. 1 and 2 collateral, the unfair operation of surplus funds, the appraisal of the security at the time of the secured loan, the loss incurred due to oil subsidies, etc., so the Defendants are not liable for the cause of the instant claim.

Shed Judgment

According to the articles of incorporation (No. 7, No. 18, No. 28, and No. 1, No. 58) of the Plaintiff’s depository, if the purport of the whole pleadings is added to the statements stated in Gap evidence 7, Eul’s evidence No. 18, and Eul evidence No. 1-58, the Plaintiff’s depository shall hold a general meeting comprised of members (Article 17(1) of the Articles of incorporation), the general meeting’s opinion shall be held with the consent of a majority of incumbent members, except as otherwise provided in Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation, and shall be held with the consent of a majority of the members present (the main text of Article 24 of the Articles of incorporation), the matters to be resolved at the general meeting shall be the matters stipulated in Article 11(4)1 through 7 of the former Community Credit Cooperatives Act, and the matters to be resolved by the board of directors shall be the important matters as determined by the board of directors (Article 25 of the Articles of incorporation), and the result of the resolution of the Defendant’s depository and its representative shall be held without liability for the Plaintiff’s representative.

① However, in light of Article 11 of the former Community Credit Cooperatives Act and Article 11 of the Plaintiff’s articles of association, and Article 11 of the Plaintiff’s articles of association do not provide for exemption from liability to the credit cooperatives of officers and employees, ② The purpose of legislation of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act and the public nature of community credit cooperatives, where the executives and employees neglect their duties and are liable to compensate for damages to community credit cooperatives, it is difficult to view that exemption from liability can be made by a resolution of the representatives’ general meeting (it seems that Article 58-2 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act amended by Act No. 7568 of August 4, 2005 is newly established so that the Federation may demand damages to the credit cooperatives or claim damages by subrogation). Thus, it is reasonable to view that exemption from liability to the Plaintiff’s credit cooperatives by the officers and employees should not be included in the resolution of the representatives’ general meeting of the Plaintiff’s National Assembly. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s general meeting of February 5, 2005, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ aforementioned Defendants were exempted from liability.

Therefore, the defendants' defense is without merit.

B. The legitimacy of the defense of abuse of rights by Defendant 1 and Defendant 3

Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 asserted to the effect that, among the directors who agreed to the resolution of the board of directors relating to the termination of the right to collateral security and the excess loans extended to the same person, only Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 are claiming against abuse of rights or justice and equity, and thus, it is unreasonable to deem the Plaintiff’s claim in this case constitutes abuse of rights. However, the above Defendants’ claim is without merit.

10. Scope of liability for damages

A. Partial limitation on liability for damages against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4

In the case of claims for damages due to the violation of the loan limit by the same person against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4, claims for damages due to non-acquisition of collateral at the time of a loan loan, failure to appraise the collateral, and improper operation of surplus funds against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, such damages shall be limited to 50% of the above claims for damages, the liabilities of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 shall be limited to 10% of the above claims for damages, in consideration of all circumstances, such as the fact that the above Defendants committed an attackive act on behalf of the Plaintiff’s Treasury, or occurred in the course of operating surplus funds, and most of the loans to the same person is deemed to have been repaid in excess of the principal amount, and the degree of involvement in the loan business of the above Defendants

B. Calculation of damages

(1) Defendant 1

As indicated in the attached Table 4, Defendant 1: (i) the Plaintiff; (ii) the amount of damages (2) KRW 1,160,760,524 due to loans extended by the same person in violation of the lending limit (2,321,521,521,048 x 50%) due to loans extended by the same person; (iii) the amount of damages (4.15,000 won due to non-acquisition of collateral (4.310,000 x 50%) due to non-acquisition of collateral; (iv) the amount of damages (180,893,120 x 50%) due to non-acquisition of collateral security appraisal (180,893,120 x 50%); (v) the amount of damages (2,201,74,000 won, 704, 2004, 209, 301, 9051, 601, x 9604) due to the Plaintiff.

Doz. 2

As indicated in the attached Table 4, Defendant 2 and the Plaintiff jointly and severally with Defendant 1: ① KRW 61,717,00,00 for the amount of damages due to the unfair termination of the first and second collateral mortgages in this case; ② KRW 696,456,314 for the loan extended in violation of the credit limit of the same person (=amount of damages 2,321,521,048 x KRW 30% for the limitation of liability; hereinafter the same shall apply); ③ The amount of damages due to non-acquisition of the collateral (amount of KRW 4310,00 x 30% for the limitation of liability); ④ The amount of damages due to the non-acquisition of the collateral (amount of KRW 4310,00 x 30% for the secured loan x 180,893,120 x 30% for the limited liability limitation of liability); ⑤ The amount of damages due to the operation of surplus funds x KRW 301450,2940 x 29450.70

【Defendant 3

As shown in attached Table 4, Defendant 3 is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 61,7170,000 due to the unfair termination of the instant Claim 1 and 2 as well as damages for delay from June 19, 2009, among the amounts described in the said paragraph.

x Defendant 4

As stated in the attached Table 4, Defendant 4 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to pay the damages for delay from June 19, 2009, the sum of KRW 174,095,467, as well as KRW 164,424,308 (i.e., damages amount of KRW 1,644,243,083 x 10% of the damages amount due to loans in violation of the lending limit of the same person (i.e., damages amount of KRW 1,64,243,083 x 10% of the liability limitation ratio).

11. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without any justifiable reasons. As to the part of each claim of this case which is less than the amount of damages recognized by the court of first instance, such as the statement in the list of personal identification of the appellant in attached Table 5, part of the appeal shall be accepted by the defendant 1, 2, and 4 corresponding thereto, and the part against the above defendants ordering payment exceeding the amount recognized by the court of first instance among the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the corresponding part shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. As to the part which is larger than the amount of damages recognized by the court of first instance than the amount of damages recognized by the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be modified against the defendants in the case of this case where only the defendants appealed. Accordingly, the appeal by the defendants corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

[Attachment Form]

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)

(1) Article 37 (Number, etc. of Executives at the 49th regular meeting of February 6, 2009) (1) Article 37 (Number, etc. of executives) (1) of the Articles of incorporation (the 49th regular meeting of February 6, 2009) (1) A credit cooperative shall have not less than 7 but not more than 9 directors, including one chairperson and one vice-chairperson, as its executive officers, and not more than 3 auditors. (2) A credit cooperative shall have a full-time president pursuant to Article 18 (2) of the Act. (1) A credit cooperative shall have not less than 7 but not more than 15 directors, including one chairperson and one vice-chairperson, and not more than 3 auditors, and its executive officers shall not concurrently hold other offices of a credit cooperative.