1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff terminated the defendant's guarantee liability because the plaintiff confirmed that the defects of the 4, 5, 3, and 5th apartment buildings of this case were all repaired after the expiration of each defect warranty liability as to the 2, 3, and 5th apartment buildings of this case to the non-party corporation (the non-party corporation was ordered to commence rehabilitation procedures on April 30, 2010 and received the decision to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan on December 27, 2010; hereinafter "non-party corporation") and the defect that occurred until the end of each defect warranty period was repaired. The public letter "the defect warranty cancellation notice" sent to the non-party company that the plaintiff confirmed that the defect warranty was completed by the non-party company's inspector, and the plaintiff and the non-party company expressed their intent to cancel the guarantee contract of this case to the defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal in this part is nothing more than a legitimate ground of appeal against the selection of evidence and the legitimacy of fact-finding which belong to the lower court’s full power as a fact-finding court. Furthermore, even if the lower court’s decision is examined in light of the records, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on interpretation of intention, or by exceeding

In addition, the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the responsibilities and obligations of the non-party company were extinguished on the grounds of Article 35(2) and (4) of the construction contract agreement on the instant apartment Nos. 4 and 5 sections is a new argument in the final appeal without being asserted in the original judgment, and thus, it cannot

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

If a rehabilitation claim which is the primary obligation has been forfeited under Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, it is no longer likely that the process or interruption of the extinctive prescription of the primary obligation will be an issue. In such a case, the guarantor can only claim the completion of the extinctive prescription of the primary obligation, and cannot invoke the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the primary obligation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the second defect of the apartment of this case was from August 17, 2006, and the third defect was from August 17, 2007 to five years, respectively. The plaintiff's claim against the non-party company of this case against the non-party of this case was forfeited by the approval of the rehabilitation plan on December 27, 2010, without reporting it as a rehabilitation claim in the rehabilitation procedure against the non-party company and without stating it as a rehabilitation claim in the list of rehabilitation creditors.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation claim against the non-party company of the primary debtor forfeited to an authorization for the rehabilitation plan before the expiration of the statutory period, the extinctive prescription on the primary obligation cannot be an issue. In such a case, the Defendant, the surety, cannot assert the completion of the extinctive prescription on the primary obligation. Although the lower court’s explanation on this part was inappropriate, the conclusion that rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription on the ground

3. As to the third ground for appeal

This part of the ground of appeal is with the purport that the defendant's obligation was extinguished according to the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation, since the plaintiff did not participate in the rehabilitation procedure against the non-party company and forfeited the plaintiff's claim against

However, Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that the debtor shall be exempted from liability for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights except for the rights recognized under the provisions of this Act when it is decided to authorize the rehabilitation plan. Meanwhile, Article 250(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that the rehabilitation plan does not affect any right held by any rehabilitation creditor or any rehabilitation secured creditor against the debtor and any other person who bears obligations together with the debtor for whom the rehabilitation procedures commence, and any security provided by any person other than the debtor for the debtor or any rehabilitation secured creditor. In light of the purport of Article 250(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, even where the creditor’s rights are forfeited under Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, in cases where the provisions of Article 250(2) of the same Act are equally applied, and thus, the right of the rightful claimant’s guarantor or any person who has pledged his/her property to secure another’s obligation is not affected (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18685, May 30, 2003).

4. Conclusion

The appeal is 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.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)