In a case where a representative director Gap of a mutual savings bank borrowed money from Eul as if the above credit cooperative borrowed money from Eul for the purpose of raising funds of joint representative director Byung, whether he is liable to compensate for the above credit cooperative Eul (affirmative)

If Gap, the representative director of the mutual savings bank, requested Eul to deposit and dispose of a certain amount of money from Eul as deposit, and Eul borrowed the above amount in order to raise the personal funds of Byung who is a joint representative director, but did not keep the above amount in appearance but in the account book such as the loan ledger, and delivered a promissory note issued in Byung's personal name instead of the above loan certificate, it would be null and void as Gap's personal loan act. However, his act is closely related to Eul's representative director's duties and should be deemed as the act within the scope of duties of the above representative director of the bank. Since Eul knew of transaction with the above credit cooperative, the above credit cooperative is liable for damages suffered by Eul due to Gap's illegal act related to Gap's duties.

Articles 35 and 756 of the Civil Act, Articles 389 and 210 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu733 Decided December 8, 1988 (Gong1988,1525) Decided 67Da2785 Decided January 31, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu733 Decided November 8, 1988 (Gong198,1525)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 1 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant Mutual Savings and Finance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na623 delivered on December 8, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although Nonparty 1, the representative director of the defendant savings depository, who is engaged in the business of the defendant savings and finance company under the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, was requested to deposit 3.1 million won in the defendant savings depository through Kim Jong-hwan, which was at the time of February 18, 1983, to the defendant savings and finance company, and was the representative of the plaintiff Kim Jong-hwan, who was his wife, to deposit the above money with the defendant savings and finance company as deposit money. The court below agreed to 1.25% per annum with the above 13% per annum. The non-party 1, who was the joint representative director of the defendant savings and finance company, was not the defendant savings and finance company's personal funds for the purpose of raising the above funds to the non-party 2, who was the defendant savings and finance company's personal funds, and the above funds were not issued to the non-party 2, who was the defendant savings and finance company's private funds to the non-party 4,000 won.

Under the premise of the above facts, the non-party 1, the representative director of the defendant safe, received each of the above amounts as if they were borrowed from the defendant safe. The act of the non-party 1's personal loan is null and void in the loan act of the defendant safe, such as the consent of two-thirds or more of all the members under Article 17 (1) and (2) of the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act or the resolution of the board of directors is not obtained. However, the acts of the non-party 1 are closely related to the duties of the representative director of the defendant safe, as well as acts within the scope of duties of the representative director of the defendant safe, and the acts of the representative director of the defendant safe must be deemed to be acts within the scope of duties of the defendant safe. Since the plaintiff's wife was aware of the transaction with the defendant safe, the defendant safe is liable for compensation for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the illegal acts of the non-party 1, the representative director (see Supreme Court Decisions 67Da2785, Dec. 22, 1987).

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)