The case holding that a financial institution's loan claim does not constitute a debt owed to an insured financial institution by depositors, etc. under Article 32 (1) of the Depositor Protection Act on the ground that it cannot be set off against a deposit return obligation on the ground that a financial institution's loan claim does not constitute a debt for which a depositor, etc. under Article 32 (1) of the Depositor Protection Act has been issued, delivered, received a promissory note for the purpose of collateral, and endorsed, transferred to another person, unless the financial institution

The case holding that a financial institution's loan claim does not constitute a debt owed to an insured financial institution by depositors, etc. as provided in Article 32 (1) of the Depositor Protection Act on the ground that it cannot be set off against the deposit return obligation on the ground that the financial institution's loan claim cannot be set off separately unless it holds a promissory note.

Articles 32(1) and 35-6 of the Depositor Protection Act; Article 492 of the Civil Act

Pung Forest Industry Co., Ltd. (Law Firm White, Attorneys Cho Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na 18655 delivered on September 29, 2000

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

1. Factual basis

The facts duly established by the court below are as follows.

A. At around March 1998, the Plaintiff issued and delivered promissory notes with a face value of 3 billion won at the discount of bills to the Non-Party Comprehensive Financial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Daehan”) and extended loans with a face value of 3 billion won at the discount of bills. The Plaintiff issued and delivered the same amount of promissory notes over several times each time when the maturity comes thereafter.

B. On April 8, 199, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,000,384,668 in the closing money (hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

(c) the payment of all obligations, such as deposits, was suspended on April 9, 199 after receiving an order to suspend operations from the Financial Supervisory Service on April 10, 199;

D. The Korea Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “CF”) was obligated to return approximately KRW 70 billion deposits to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. On April 9, 1999, the said Promissory Notes issued and delivered by the Plaintiff as security for the said obligations were endorsed and transferred to the NAF, and the NAF presented the payment of the said Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff on July 13, 1999, but the Plaintiff submitted to the NAF and refused payment.

E. On June 2, 199, the Defendant Corporation announced the deposit payment announcement to purchase the deposit subject to insurance money under the Depositor Protection Act and pay the purchase price to the deposit owner through Hanman Integrated Finance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Deposit Finance Corporation”), which is a resolution financial institution for resolution. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant Corporation to pay the insurance money on July 12, 1999, the public notice period.

F. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on July 14, 1999, Korea-U.S. paid for the obligation to return the deposit money to the Nonghyup Federation and received the said promissory note issued by the Plaintiff. On the other hand, on December 24, 199, Seoul District Court 9Da318201 of the same year filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim of the amount of promissory note amount of KRW 3 billion against the Plaintiff.

2. Both claims;

According to the records, in regard to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for payment of KRW 3,00,384,668 of insurance money equivalent to the deposit amount for the termination money pursuant to Article 31 of the Depositor Protection Act, the defendant is obligated to pay only the amount calculated by deducting KRW 3,000,000,000 from the amount of the deposit amount for the termination money of the plaintiff's deposit pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the Depositor Protection Act, and the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff for the termination money against the plaintiff on the equal amount of the claim against the plaintiff for the termination money of the deposit amount pursuant to Article 35-6 of the Depositor Protection Act, the defendant asserted that the insurance money to be paid to the plaintiff is only KRW 384,668,0,00, and the plaintiff again

3. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below presumed that, in the case where the Defendant is able to claim the deduction of a bill-based loan against the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, it should be able to exercise its claim by means of demanding the payment of the loan against the Plaintiff or offsetting the claim. Accordingly, there should be no legal disadvantage to the Plaintiff by deducting the loan. If a promissory note issued to secure the loan is transferred to a third party, and a third party exercises its claim against the issuer of a promissory note, unless there are special circumstances, such as the issuer of the promissory note is able to exercise its right of defense against the third party who is the holder of the promissory note, the Plaintiff cannot separately exercise its claim against the issuer without holding a promissorysory note, and the Plaintiff issued a promissory note amount of KRW 3 billion with a view to guaranteeing the payment of the loan against the Plaintiff, and the amount of the loan against the Plaintiff cannot be claimed against the Plaintiff as the holder of the above promissory note-based loan without exercising its right of defense against the Plaintiff, which is the holder of the above promissory note.

4. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

According to the above facts, since the payment of the balance sheet was issued and delivered by the Plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 3 billion was loaned by the discount loan of the bill, and then the above promissory note was endorsed and transferred to another person, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to pay the payment of the balance sheet to the holder of the promissory note, barring any special circumstance, and as the payment of the balance sheet is a final payment, the Plaintiff cannot separately exercise the obligation to pay the balance sheet against the Plaintiff as the issuer of the promissory note, unless there are special circumstances where the Plaintiff may refuse the payment of the balance sheet against the holder of the promissory note. The judgment of the court below to this purport is justified.

In addition, Article 32 (1) of the Depositor Protection Act provides that "the amount obtained by deducting the total amount of debts owed by depositors, etc. to the relevant insured financial institution from the total amount of deposits of depositors, etc. as of the date of announcement of payment of insurance money" as insurance money. However, as seen above, the court below is just in holding that the above provision is not applicable in cases where payment of insurance money cannot be exercised against the plaintiff and it cannot be offset against the plaintiff's obligation to return deposits with automatic bonds.

Meanwhile, Article 35-6 of the Depositor Protection Act provides that "the Corporation may set off claims such as deposits of depositors, etc. (excluding deposits, etc. offered by depositors, etc. to the insured financial institution as security for others) as of the date of announcement of payment of insurance money on behalf of depositors, etc., and obligations of depositors, etc. (excluding surety obligations) owed to the insured financial institution by depositors, etc. are set off. This provision also provides on the premise that the claims of depositors, etc. of the insured financial institution are set-off. In this case, as seen above, the claim of loans and the obligation to return deposits against the plaintiff in this case are not set-off. Therefore, the defendant's defense claiming a set-off under Article 35-6 of the Depositor Protection Act is without merit. Although the court below did not make an explicit decision on this point, it can be deemed that this purport is included in the judgment of the court below to the purport that the loans and the obligation to return deposits against the plaintiff are not set-off.

Therefore, the legal judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, as long as the defendant's defense is without merit, it is not necessary to make a decision on the remainder of the plaintiff's defense. Thus, the court below's decision that accepted the plaintiff's claim without making a decision on it is just and there is no illegality in law. Therefore, the ground of appeal as to this point

5. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)