부동산 프로젝트 파이낸스(Project Finance)와 상호저축은행 이사의 책임: 대법원 2021. 5. 7.선고 2018다275888 판결을 중심으로

In the structure of real estate project finance, mutual savings banks are involved in initial funding loans, dealing with a lot of so-called bridge loans. Real estate project finance can be said to be a high-risk business. Therefore, if real estate project finance fails, mutual savings banks that deal with a lot of bridge loans are likely to suffer a great loss, and in the worst case, they can go bankrupt. The Supreme Court ruling in this case acknowledged the liability of the directors of mutual savings banks in that they did not comply with the real estate project finance business feasibility evaluation procedure in implementing real estate project finance-related loans. Recently, warnings about the real estate project finance crisis are continuing, and the government's stabilization policy is being promoted. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruling in this case is valuable in that there is a high possibility that mutual savings banks will become insolvent due to failure to invest in real estate project finance in the future. However, it is deemed necessary to add the following judgment in relation to the Supreme Court decision in this case. First, it is necessary to consistently specify the judgment on the publicity and specificity of mutual savings banks in the judgment. Second, it is necessary to reflect in the judgment that directors of mutual savings banks require a higher duty of care than that of directors of corporations. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling, which consistently emphasizes the strictness of the directors' obligations and liabilities of mutual savings banks, can reduce the possibility of insolvent mutual savings banks to some extent, and furthermore, it can be one of the judicial policies to ensure the sound operation of the deposit insurance system.