Plaintiff (Appellant)

AA

Defendant (Appellee)

BB, CCC

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. A contract to establish a mortgage is a disposal document, and thus, in principle, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the language and text of the contract, unless there are special circumstances. However, in the case of a contract which is uniformly printed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the form of a general transaction agreement, the scope of the secured obligation can be limited according to the intent of the party concerned if it is deemed reasonable to interpret the scope of the secured obligation in accordance with the terms and conditions printed out in light of various circumstances, such as the developments leading up to the conclusion of the contract to establish the secured obligation, loan practices, relationship between the amount of the loan and the amount of the future obligation, the amount of the debt, and whether the secured obligation is separately secured against the general loan practices of the financial institution, and it is reasonable to interpret the contract as the purpose of the secured obligation of the financial institution only as the secured obligation of the secured obligation. This legal doctrine also applies to the case where the parties stated the loan as part of the contract to establish a mortgage in the form of a general transaction agreement in the form of 200-700 text.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the judgment below and records, namely,CC (hereinafter referred to as "CC") is a 60 billion won loan agreement, and the terms of "general collateral security agreement", which is one of the types of secured debt previously printed by DDR at the time of entering into each contract with DDA bank, and the EE ofCC's representative director, which is one of the types of debt settlement term, are deemed to be written at its own expense. However, it is reasonable to conclude a 00 billion won loan agreement with ○○○○○-dong 00-000,000,000 won loan agreement for each of the above 600-600,000 won loan agreement, each of the above 60-600,000 won loan agreement was not entered into on the 400-600,000 won loan agreement, and each of the above 60-600,000 won loan agreement was not entered into.

Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff received a full amount of the principal and interest on the claim stated in the claim account statement as to cC andff from the proceeds from sale under cccccc and the proceeds from sale under fff, and the proceeds from sale under 00,000,000,000 won, among each of the instant real estate, the amount apportioned is within the scope of each maximum debt amount of ccc andff, the said two collateral security rights cannot be deemed to cover the remainder of 4 loans within the scope of each maximum debt amount.

Although the reasoning of the court below was inappropriate in its reasoning, it is just in the conclusion that rejected the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no error in the judgment below that affected the conclusion of the judgment, such as the legal principles on the secured obligation of the right to collateral security, the legal principles on the change of claims by the creditor applying for auction in the voluntary auction procedure, the legal principles on the calculation of the amount to be distributed to the mortgagee, or the legal principles on the validity of the statement of claims submitted by the creditor applying for auction in the voluntary auction procedure, or the violation

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.