[2] The case holding that where a joint and several guarantee is provided under a lease agreement to promote the sale of the imported goods it supplies, the above guarantee company is limited to the parts related to the lease agreement for the imported goods it supplies, and the liability for the guarantee is not borne unless there is a separate guarantee act for the obligations arising from the addition of the goods supplied by a third party under the modified contract

In light of the above facts, the court below found that the plaintiff was liable for 10% of the total amount of its principal debt and 10% of the total amount of 10,000,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 3,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 4,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 10,000 won and 4,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 4,000,000 won and 1,000,000 won and 1,000,00 won and 2,00,000 won and 1,00,000 won and 1,00,00 won and 2,00 won, and 3,01,00 won.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4.

(1) A financial lease agreement on imported goods cannot accurately calculate the acquisition value of the goods at the time of concluding the lease agreement (i.e., increase or decrease of the value of the goods, customs clearance cost, exchange rate fluctuations, interest cost increase, etc.). Thus, a separate signature and seal at the time of concluding the modified contract may cause trouble and inconvenience if the contents of the modified contract are to be increased in a minor amount or to the extent that it can be sufficiently predicted from the guarantor’s standpoint. On the other hand, refusal of joint and several surety at the time of the modified contract by the guarantor on the ground of such change is not reasonable in light of the nature of the said lease agreement. Thus, it is limited to cases where the value of the goods, customs clearance cost increase, and the amount of the modified contract is within 1/10 of the original contract, and (ii) the scope of the modified contract shall be limited to cases where it is increased within the scope of 1/100 of the original contract, and the guarantor shall not be held liable for the change of the principal obligation under Article 1 of the amended contract.

Therefore, if the principal obligation is changed due to the modification contract, the liability of the joint and several sureties within the scope of 110% of the principal obligation under the original lease contract shall be extended and weighted according to the modification contract (if the extension or aggravation of the principal obligation under the modification contract exceeds 110% of the principal obligation under the original lease contract, it shall be interpreted that the principal obligation is entirely exempted or within the scope of the principal obligation under the original lease contract, but it shall not be limited to the guaranteed obligation under the modified contract within the scope of 110% of the principal obligation under the original lease contract. Therefore, the ground of appeal No. 3 against this is rejected.) If the principal obligation does not meet the above requirements, it shall be considered that the guarantee liability under the contents of the principal obligation extended and added by the modified contract shall be limited to the principal obligation under the original lease contract prior to the change without any support for the guarantee liability under the contents of the principal obligation under the modified contract.

(2) Furthermore, as seen earlier, the acquisition cost under the modified contract changed from the original US$350,00 and the won currency KRW 95,00,000 to the original US$379,436.49 and the won currency KRW 154,383,297. In light of the record, the part of the won currency included the increased portion due to the addition of three kinds of goods supplied by large machinery, etc. other than the instant imported goods as a lease object. The U.S. portion is deemed to have been increased due to exchange rate fluctuations, etc. The increase in expenses or increase in exchange rate due to the import, customs clearance, storage, delay in enforcement of lease, etc., which are stipulated in the original lease contract. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s alteration of the acquisition cost under Article 7 of the original lease contract constitutes an inevitable change in the acquisition cost, and thus, it is difficult to view that it constitutes an additional change in the amount of the guaranteed contract, not an additional one-third party, but an additional one-third party, not an acquisition cost.

(3) Meanwhile, according to the records, including evidence Nos. 8-1 and evidence Nos. 13-2, prior to the conclusion of the original lease contract, the defendant prepared and delivered five copies of the letter of promise to sell the goods on March 11, 1993, and the plaintiff, based on the letter of credit, issued a letter of credit regarding the goods listed in the table Nos. 1 through 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "imported goods") on March 31, 1993. The original lease contract was concluded on March 29, 1993. The particulars and price of the above goods stated in the letter of promise to sell the goods on the bill of credit and its subsequent import lease contract were the same as those stated in the letter of credit and the letter of promise to sell the goods on the bill of credit No. 300,000,000,000 won, whichever is less than 30,000 won, whichever is less than 30,000 won, whichever is less than 30.

(4) Therefore, with respect to the additional portion of the leased article supplied by a third party, the liability under the modified contract cannot be held liable because it is difficult to see that it falls under an inevitable cause of Article 11 of the Terms and Conditions as seen in paragraph (1) above, and as seen in paragraph (3) above, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's intent to guarantee under the original lease contract exists, and thus, the defendant cannot be held liable under the original lease contract. Thus, in this case where the defendant did not stand joint and several surety for the modified contract, the defendant cannot be held liable for the guarantee under the contents of the principal obligation additionally extended and heavy due to the goods.

(5) Thus, the court below should separate the part concerning the imported goods of this case and the goods added at the time of the modified contract from the part concerning the Plaintiff's claim for compensation for losses in accordance with the provision of this case, and recognize the Defendant's liability for guarantee under the modified contract within the limit of 110% of the amount stipulated in the original lease agreement with respect to the former. However, the court below erred by recognizing the Defendant's liability by recognizing the Defendant's liability to the extent of 110% of the amount stipulated in the original lease agreement without separating the added goods under the modified contract from the original lease agreement. The

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 5

The gist of this part of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff was paid KRW 205,206,029 on August 22, 2003, which was after the closing of argument in the court below's proceedings for the compulsory sale of real estate on the non-party's property at the time of the original lease agreement, which was the president of the Seoul German Hospital, which was personally and severally guaranteed by the Plaintiff at the time of the original lease agreement; and (b) on August 4, 2003, the above repayment effect was designated on August 4, 200 to be appropriated to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the obligation under the original lease agreement and the modified contract of this case prior to the above dividends; (c) the total amount of the dividends received or at least the amount corresponding to the ratio of the leased goods of this case on the whole leased goods should be deducted from the cited amount. Thus, even in the Plaintiff's assertion itself, the above circumstance is a circumstance after the closing of argument at the court below, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal as to the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed by accepting the first, second, and fourth points of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)