Whether Article 37 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act is effective provisions

The reason for the provision of Article 37 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act is that loans, etc. are made to investors, etc. closely related to the mutual savings and finance company without considering their credit or collateral, which might deteriorate the capital structure of the mutual savings and finance company, so it is possible to prevent such loans, etc. However, if the above provision is deemed effective regulations, and thus the loans, etc. violating it are deemed null and void, it would rather contribute to the establishment of credit order by fostering the mutual savings and finance company in order to promote the financial convenience of ordinary people and increase the savings, and would substantially go against the purport of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act enacted for the purpose of protecting the customers, and the above provision shall be deemed the so-called regulation regulations.

Article 37 of the Mutual Saving and Financing Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd.

Attorney Seo-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na30203 delivered on May 13, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to Article 37 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, the Mutual Savings and Finance Company shall not grant loans or discount bills to investors, executives, and employees, and their lineal relatives. The reason for the above provision is that loans, etc. to investors, etc. closely related to the Mutual Savings and Finance Company is likely to deteriorate the capital structure of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company without considering their credit and security. However, if the above provision is viewed as effective provisions and the loans, etc. in violation of the above provision are deemed null and void, it would result in substantially violating the purport of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, which was enacted for the purpose of promoting the financial convenience of ordinary people and protecting their customers, thereby contributing to the establishment of credit order by fostering the Mutual Savings and Finance Company and reasonably regulating the loans, etc. in violation of the above provision. Therefore, even if the loans, etc. were granted in violation of the above provision, it shall be considered as the so-called Regulation Regulations.

The court below's decision to the effect that even if the loan of this case is in violation of the above provisions, it does not become null and void in the private liability of the borrower and joint and several sureties due to the loan of this case is just in accordance with the above opinion, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to a juristic act null and void in violation of the mandatory law.

2. As long as the legal effect of the instant loan is recognized as a private law, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s responsibility to guarantee the Defendant, a joint guarantor, violates the principle of good faith or is an abuse of rights. Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the principles of good faith and the legal principles on abuse of rights, such as the theory

3. In addition, according to the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's joint and several liability was revoked is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the expression of intent by mistake or mistake, such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)