Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Returning credit union officers and a measure under Article 84(1)(i)
Supreme Court, May 30, 2019, 2018Du52204 (judgment)
Case name: 제재처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does Article 18(1) of the Financial Services Commission's Notice on the Inspection and Sanction of Financial Institutions, issued under Article 60 of the Financial Services Commission Act, bind third parties as a legally binding regulation, and can a credit union officer who deliberately commits serious misconduct and later returns as an officer of the same cooperative be the subject of a measure required under Article 84(1)(i) of the Credit Unions Act?
Holding
Yes on both counts. Reading the structure, content and legislative purpose of the relevant statutes and the Notice together, Article 18(1) specifies in detail matters that become the content of legislation under the Commission's delegation and does not exceed that delegation, so it has the effect of a regulation binding on third parties in combination with it. An officer who deliberately commits serious misconduct may fall within the ground for a dismissal recommendation in Article 18(1)(i)(a), and where such an officer leaves and then takes office again in the same credit union, the Commission may require the cooperative to take the improvement measure under Article 84(1)(i), because the cooperative's credibility may again be seriously damaged.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그가 퇴임이나 퇴직을 하였다가 다시 동일한 신용협동조합의 임원이 된 경우에도 신용협동조합법 제84조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 조치 요구의 대상이 된다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
even where he or she has resigned or retired and then become an officer of the same credit union again, he or she should be regarded as becoming subject to a demand for measures under Article 84 (1) 1 of the Credit Unions Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위 고시 제18조 제1항은 금융위원회법의 위임에 따라 법령의 내용이 될 사항을 구체적으로 정한 것으로서 금융위원회 법령의 위임 한계를 벗어나지 않으므로 그와 결합하여 대외적으로 구속력이 있는 법규명령의 효력을 가진다.
Unofficial English translation
Article 18 (1) of the above Regulations, in that it specifically provides for matters that will constitute the content of statutes and regulations pursuant to the delegation under the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Financial Services Commission, does not exceed the limits of the delegation to the Financial Services Commission by statute, and therefore, in combination therewith, it has the effect of delegated legislation binding on third parties.
Factors
- 금융위원회법의 위임에 따라 법령의 내용이 될 사항을 구체적으로 정한 것으로서 금융위원회 법령의 위임 한계를 벗어나지 않으므로
- 고의로 중대한 위법행위를 하여 금융질서를 크게 문란시키거나 금융기관의 공신력을 크게 훼손하였다면
- 퇴임이나 퇴직을 하였다가 다시 동일한 신용협동조합의 임원이 된 경우에도
- 신용협동조합의 임직원이 고의로 중대한 위법행위를 저지른 후 다시 동일한 신용협동조합의 임원으로 취임한 경우 신용협동조합의 공신력을 크게 훼손할 수 있기 때문이다
Unofficial English translation
• in that it specifically provides for matters that will constitute the content of statutes and regulations pursuant to the delegation under the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Financial Services Commission, and thus does not exceed the limits of the delegation to the Financial Services Commission by statute, and therefore
• if he or she has intentionally committed a serious unlawful act, thereby seriously disrupting the financial order or seriously undermining the public credibility of a financial institution
• even where he or she has resigned or retired and then become an officer of the same credit union again
• because where an officer or employee of a credit union has committed a serious unlawful act with intent and thereafter assumed office as an officer of the same credit union again, this may seriously undermine the public credibility of the credit union
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2008. 4. 10. 선고 2007두4841 판결(공2008상, 685)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4841 decided April 10, 2008 (Gong 2008 Sang, 685)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2008. 4. 10. 선고 2007두4841 판결(공2008상, 685)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Must the return appointment itself follow a separate procedure or a period of exclusion before Article 84(1)(i) may be applied to it?
A later Supreme Court decision questioning the external binding force of the Financial Services Commission's inspection and sanction Notice, or an amendment to Article 18(1) of that Notice or Article 84 of the Credit Unions Act, would call for this entry to be read again. So would a judgment on whether misconduct by an officer of a different cooperative can support the same measure.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Must the return appointment itself follow a separate procedure or a period of exclusion before Article 84(1)(i) may be applied to it?” vs Independent “Would the same misconduct justify a removal recommendation if the person became an officer of a different credit union?”
The primary asks whether the return appointment needs a separate procedure or exclusion period, while the independent asks whether the same misconduct would justify a recommendation if the person joined a different credit union.
그가 퇴임이나 퇴직을 하였다가 다시 동일한 신용협동조합의 임원이 된 경우에도 신용협동조합법 제84조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 조치 요구의 대상이 된다고 보아야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 20 July 2018 (2017Nu80358), rejected the plaintiff's claim to cancel the disposition. It held that the loans he made as branch manager exceeded the single-obligor lending limit in Article 42 of the Credit Unions Act, that there was no justifiable reason to excuse him from that breach, and that the disposition was not so harsh as to exceed the bounds of discretionary power, given his share of responsibility, the amount over KRW 2 billion lent unlawfully with intent or gross negligence, and the sanction criteria in Article 46(2) of the Enforcement Rules for the Notice.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the court below had correctly applied the requirements of Article 84(1) of the Credit Unions Act, had not misread the law on the single-obligor lending limit in Article 42 nor failed to exercise its duty to clarify the case, and had not misread the law on abuse of discretionary power. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal with costs on the losing plaintiff.
Distinguishing conditions
- A person who leaves the credit union and does not again take office as an officer of the same cooperative, since the Court relied on the risk of renewed damage to that cooperative's credibility.
- Conduct that does not amount to a deliberate serious breach disordering the financial order or seriously damaging the institution's credibility, so that the ground in Article 18(1)(i)(a) of the Notice is not met.
- A measure resting on a Notice that no longer stays within the limits of the delegation in Article 60 of the Financial Services Commission Act, since the Court's holding on binding force depends on that condition.
Record verification notes
First fix which version of the Notice was in force on 14 December 2016, the date of the disposition, and check the wording of Article 18(1)(i)(a) against the conduct relied on. Then confirm that the person held office in the same cooperative at the time of the measure, not merely that he had once worked there. Set the sanction against the criteria in Article 46(2), Table 3, of the Enforcement Rules, as the court below did.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 금융위원회의 설치 등에 관한 법률 제60조의 위임에 따라 금융위원회가 고시한 ‘금융기관 검사 및 제재에 관한 규정’ 제18조 제1항이 대외적으로 구속력이 있는 법규명령의 효력을 가지는지 여부(적극) [2] 신용협동조합의 임직원이 고의로 중대한 위법행위를 하여 금융질서를 크게 문란시키거나 금융기관의 공신력을 크게 훼손한 경우, 금융위원회 고시 ‘금융기관 검사 및 제재에 관한 규정’ 제18조 제1항 제1호 (가)목에서 정한 해임권고 사유가 되는지 여부(적극) 및 그가 퇴임이나 퇴직을 하였다가 다시 동일한 신용협동조합의 임원이 된 경우, 신용협동조합법 제84조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 조치 요구의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether Article 18 (1) of the Regulations on the Inspection and Sanctions of Financial Institutions, publicly notified by the Financial Services Commission pursuant to the delegation under Article 60 of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Financial Services Commission, has the effect of delegated legislation binding on third parties (affirmative) [2] Where an officer or employee of a credit union has intentionally committed a serious unlawful act, thereby seriously disrupting the financial order or seriously undermining the public credibility of a financial institution, whether this constitutes a ground for a recommendation for dismissal under Article 18 (1) 1 (a) of the Regulations on the Inspection and Sanctions of Financial Institutions, publicly notified by the Financial Services Commission (affirmative), and where he or she has resigned or retired and then become an officer of the same credit union again, whether he or she becomes subject to a demand for measures under Article 84 (1) 1 of the Credit Unions Act (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 신용협동조합법 제83조 제1항, 제2항, 제84조 제1항 제1호, 제2호, 제42조, 제99조 제2항 제2호, 신용협동조합법 시행령 제16조의4 제1항, 금융위원회의 설치 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘금융위원회법’이라 한다) 제17조 제2호, 제60조, 금융위원회 고시 ‘금융기관 검사 및 제재에 관한 규정’ 제2조 제1항, 제2항, 제18조 제1항 제1호 (가)목, 제2항의 규정 체계와 내용, 입법 취지 등을 종합하면, 위 고시 제18조 제1항은 금융위원회법의 위임에 따라 법령의 내용이 될 사항을 구체적으로 정한 것으로서 금융위원회 법령의 위임 한계를 벗어나지 않으므로 그와 결합하여 대외적으로 구속력이 있는 법규명령의 효력을 가진다. [2] 신용협동조합의 임직원이 고의로 중대한 위법행위를 하여 금융질서를 크게 문란시키거나 금융기관의 공신력을 크게 훼손하였다면 금융위원회의 설치 등에 관한 법률 제60조의 위임에 따라 금융위원회가 고시한 ‘금융기관 검사 및 제재에 관한 규정’ 제18조 제1항 제1호 (가)목에서 정한 해임권고의 사유가 될 수 있다. 그가 퇴임이나 퇴직을 하였다가 다시 동일한 신용협동조합의 임원이 된 경우에도 신용협동조합법 제84조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 조치 요구의 대상이 된다고 보아야 한다. 왜냐하면 신용협동조합의 임직원이 고의로 중대한 위법행위를 저지른 후 다시 동일한 신용협동조합의 임원으로 취임한 경우 신용협동조합의 공신력을 크게 훼손할 수 있기 때문이다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 신용협동조합법 제42조, 제83조 제1항, 제2항, 제84조 제1항 제1호, 제2호, 제99조 제2항 제2호, 신용협동조합법 시행령 제16조의4 제1항, 금융위원회의 설치 등에 관한 법률 제17조 제2호, 제60조 [2] 신용협동조합법 제83조 제1항, 제2항, 제84조 제1항 제1호, 제2호, 금융위원회의 설치 등에 관한 법률 제60조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger