대여금
1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (b) the Defendant B’s “Defendant B” for the reason of the judgment of the court of first instance is as the “Defendant”; and (c) the Defendant A’s “Defendant A” as the “Appointed”; and (d) other than adding the following details after the fifth, the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance
[Additional Part] In the event that a person performs a collateral guarantee in order to guarantee an unspecified debt to be incurred in the future from a continuous credit transaction relationship, and the same person performs a collateral guarantee in order to secure an unspecified debt, the establishment and termination of a collateral guarantee agreement and a collateral security agreement should, in principle, be separately dealt with as a separate contract. However, as long as a collateral guarantee and a collateral security agreement are identical to a principal obligation and a collateral security agreement of a collateral security, the amount repaid by the execution of a collateral security agreement should be deducted from the guarantee limit of the collateral, unless there are special circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27160 Decided July 9, 2004). However, this is a legal principle applicable to cases where a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another’s property and a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another’s property are the same person. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 157,30,000 in the course of the voluntary auction on the instant real property owned by the selected person. As such, the Defendant’s limit of the Defendant’s collateral guarantee liability per se
(2) The judgment of the court of first instance is justified and the defendant’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.