The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The court below acknowledged that, when Defendant 1 entered into an agency contract with the Plaintiff around April 1986 that the Plaintiff will continue to purchase and sell drinking products manufactured by the Plaintiff, the remaining Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed all the obligations to be borne by Defendant 1 to the Plaintiff due to its agency transaction, the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 renewed the agency contract around April 1987, and the remaining Defendants are jointly and severally guaranteed with the same content, and the contract term of the renewal contract shall be up to December 31, 1987 unless one of the parties expressed his intention to terminate the contract as above 30 days prior to the expiration of the contract term, the contract shall be automatically extended 1 year on the ground that the above agency's successor will not be automatically extended at the request of the other Defendants, and thus, it rejected the Defendants' assertion that the above agency's transfer of business was terminated by the Nonparty's agent's consent to give up the contract to the Plaintiff on December 31, 1987.

If the relevant evidence is reviewed by comparison with the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law that misleads the facts against the rules of evidence, such as interfering with the interpretation of the disposition document, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In the instant case, as seen in the instant case, since an uncertain debt arising from the continuous transaction between the obligee and the principal obligor was guaranteed, the surety is in principle liable for the performance of the obligation that the principal obligor did not perform. However, although the surety could have anticipated or anticipated the scope of the principal obligation at the time of the surety’s guarantee, the principal obligation was excessively excessive to the extent that the principal obligation is deemed to have lost its objective reasonableness, and as such, the obligee was well aware of the circumstances where the property status of the principal obligor substantially deteriorated (the same applies in cases where the obligee did not know of gross negligence), and thus, it is deemed that the obligee intentionally increased the scale of transaction with the surety without any notification or intention, and thus, the obligee’s claim for the full performance of the principal obligation against the surety can only be limited within the reasonable scope of liability of the surety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu484, Oct. 10, 1984; 208Da483884, Apr. 28, 1987).

In short, the theory of lawsuit provides that the plaintiff may terminate the contract when the credit sales of the plaintiff against the above defendant in the contract prepared by the plaintiff and the defendant 1 in entering into the above agency contract exceeds 100% of the transaction deposit paid by the above defendant to the plaintiff. It is against the principle of good faith or the principle of fairness to assist the expansion of the credit sales by continuing transactions without taking any measures despite the rapid expansion of the credit sales of the above defendant after January 1, 198.

In comparison with relevant evidence, although the contents of the above contract are the same as the theory of lawsuit, it is nothing more than the provision of one of the reasons why the plaintiff can terminate the above agency contract, and it is not considered to limit the scope of credit transaction within the limit of the transaction deposit that the above defendant paid to the plaintiff. Thus, the remaining defendants are expected to incur the above defendant's debt only within the limit of the transaction deposit, and it cannot be deemed to have guaranteed the above defendant's joint and several liability. Further, since January 1, 1988, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff extended the size of credit transaction with knowledge of the above defendant's assets significantly aggravated or without gross negligence, there is no special reason to limit the liability of the other defendants as the guarantor. There is no reason to support this.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)