According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party agreed to guarantee the above non-party's debt within the scope of KRW 8,00,00,000, which is the maximum transaction amount when the non-party entered into a transaction agreement as the plaintiff's designated intermediary, and that the plaintiff and the above non-party traded the transaction amount of up to KRW 20,60,000,000, and then the unpaid amount of goods amount of KRW 22,420,849 as of July 14, 1981. The plaintiff was paid KRW 8,00,000,000, which was guaranteed by the non-party to the Korea Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Korea at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, and determined that the defendant's remaining amount of KRW 13,143,409,000 with the payment of KRW 13,338,3777 with the auction of the real property offered by the non-party was exempted from the guaranteed liability amount of KRW 8 million.

However, if a joint and several surety enters into a contract for a joint and several surety contract for a continuous commercial transaction to the effect that the obligor's obligation is guaranteed within a certain limit, it is reasonable to say that the remaining obligation should be held liable for the guarantee limit regardless of the partial repayment and the remaining obligation out of the obligation arising from a transaction within the said limit or from a transaction beyond the said limit, and as long as the obligation remains within the said guarantee limit, the obligation should be discharged from the said guarantee limit. Thus, unless otherwise agreed, unless otherwise otherwise, the Defendants cannot be exempted from the payment obligation of the above amount, which is the joint and several surety limit. Nevertheless, even though the court below's separate surety insurance exists in addition to the above joint and several surety in this case, the court below judged that the Defendants' obligation was discharged from the guaranteed surety due to the receipt of the above guaranteed bond, even though there was a mistake in the interpretation of the contract for a joint and several surety, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below and there is no apparent violation of justice and equity.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)