[대여금][집20(2)민,068]
In a case where the same person provides a credit guarantee to guarantee the future unspecified debt arising from a continuous transaction relationship and also provides a physical guarantee by making a registration of the establishment of a collateral security, each of the above guarantees is a separate obligation unless there are special circumstances.
In the event that a person provides a credit guarantee to guarantee future unspecified obligations arising from a continuous transaction and provides a real guarantee by establishing a neighboring mortgage, each of the above guarantees is a separate obligation unless there are special circumstances.
Article 357 of the Civil Act, Article 413 of the Civil Act
Seoul Bank, Inc.
Defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 71Na1864 delivered on February 2, 1972
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The Defendant’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 3-1, based on the records, cannot be deemed an unlawful appeal on the ground that when the Plaintiff Company’s manager submits the petition of appeal to the Nonparty under the name of the Nonparty, the said petition of appeal contains a statement that the Nonparty’s name and seal is the management officer (not the management officer).
The issue is groundless.
As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5-2
The issue of whether the principal obligation secured by the secured claim of the right to collateral security and credit guarantee is separate from the principal obligation when the same person has made a real guarantee in order to secure an unspecified debt, which will occur in the future due to continuous credit transaction relationship, is an issue of interpretation of the intention of the contracting party. According to the reasoning of the judgment, the construction of the first instance court and the partnership company exceeds the monthly maximum amount of KRW 1,00,000 with the Plaintiff on August 4, 1968, and the overdue interest is 36,000 per annum to the Plaintiff, and there is no special difference between the principal obligation and the principal obligation and the secured credit guarantee contract of KRW 100,000,000,000 which are not established by the judgment of the court below as the first instance court and the first instance court, and there is no special difference between the Defendant and the principal obligation and the secured credit guarantee contract of KRW 90,000,000,000,000,000 per annum.
All arguments are groundless.
Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3-2,3,4,5 and 5-1,3,4
According to the facts established by the original judgment, the defendant entered into a monthly agreement with the plaintiff on August 4, 1968, as well as 1,000,000 won and 1,000,000 won in the current account as well as the excess amount. The defendant guaranteed the defendant's guaranteed the defendant's guaranteed the defendant's guaranteed the defendant's guaranteed the defendant's guaranteed the defendant's guaranteed the defendant's guaranteed the defendant's guaranteed the defendant's guaranteed the above over 1,00,000 won, i.e., the excess amount, i., the additional obligation to the interest damages, etc., i.e., the over 1,50,000 won, and it is not acceptable by the statement of evidence Gap's 4, and it is not a single 3,500,000,000 won in the original judgment (the first 15,000,000 won in the oral argument and the list of evidence No. 15,000,05,000 won in the previous 15,07.
The issue is either groundless or groundless.
Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet