Decisions

All

TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2010Da83700 Decided February 23, 2012[Damages] [full Text]
Summary
[1] The legal relation(=delegation) between participating banks in the syndicated loan transaction and an agent bank entrusted with the administration and management of the syndicated loan by the participating banks and the scope of agent bank's duty of care for good-faith management [2] In case where Eul bank which participated in lending new apartment construction project funds to Gap corporation in syndication with other banks claimed damages against Byung bank delegated with a duty to manage and supervise loan execution by asserting that Byung bank knew or should have known the circumstance that a land collateral valued more than the agreed purchase price cannot be offered if it consents to the use of remaining loan money earmarked for securing an ownership to land, which is to be offered for collateral to the lending banks, as contract down payment for other land purchase, and nonetheless, it failed to notify to participating banks promptly, the case holding that Byung bank cannot be deemed as violating a good-faith manager's duty of care

TITLE

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da83700 Decided February 23, 2012[Damages] [full Text]

Summary

[1] The legal relation(=delegation) between participating banks in the syndicated loan transaction and an agent bank entrusted with the administration and management of the syndicated loan by the participating banks and the scope of agent bank's duty of care for good-faith management [2] In case where Eul bank which participated in lending new apartment construction project funds to Gap corporation in syndication with other banks claimed damages against Byung bank delegated with a duty to manage and supervise loan execution by asserting that Byung bank knew or should have known the circumstance that a land collateral valued more than the agreed purchase price cannot be offered if it consents to the use of remaining loan money earmarked for securing an ownership to land, which is to be offered for collateral to the lending banks, as contract down payment for other land purchase, and nonetheless, it failed to notify to participating banks promptly, the case holding that Byung bank cannot be deemed as violating a good-faith manager's duty of care

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1422 Decided February 23, 2012 [Violation of the Computer Program Protection Act, Obstruction of Business]
Next	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du10907 Decided February 16, 2012【Confirmation of Invalidity of Foreclosure Disposition】

list