[2] In a case where Company A entered into a credit transaction agreement with Company B on the basis of the credit guarantee certificate issued by Company B, which is a credit guarantee agency, and as a result, Company A was jointly and severally and severally guaranteed for Company B’s indemnity liability due to the performance of credit guarantee obligations by Company B, and Company A extended the guarantee period and the term of credit guarantee agreement with Company B and C, and Company B jointly and severally guaranteed Company B’s indemnity liability, the case holding that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles that Company A shall be liable

[2] In a case where Company A entered into a credit transaction agreement with Company B on the basis of the credit guarantee certificate issued by Company B, which is a credit guarantee agency, and as a joint and several surety for Company B due to Company B’s performance of credit guarantee obligations, and Company A extended the guarantee period and the term of credit transaction agreement with Company B and C, and Company B stand joint and several surety for Company B, the case holding that Company B’s credit guarantee is a collateral guarantee that guarantees Company B’s obligations to Company C, and a guarantee agreement also constitutes a continuous guarantee agreement that guarantees Company B’s obligations for uncertain indemnity based on the above guarantee agreement, but otherwise, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding that Company B’s credit guarantee liability should be borne on the premise that the individual guarantee is an individual guarantee.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants 1, 3, and 4

A. As to the first ground for appeal

Where a party to a contract prepares a contract in writing, which is a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the language is clear, barring special circumstances, the existence of the expression of intent and its content should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da44368, Jun. 24, 2011). Whether a credit guarantee by a credit guarantee agency’s credit guarantee is a guarantor of a fixed obligation or a continuous guarantor’s guarantor’s guarantor’s guarantor’s guarantor’s guarantee will be determined by the statement of the certificate issued by the credit guarantee agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da8277, Feb.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement of this case with a co-defendant CCC Co., Ltd. of the first instance court on September 12, 2007 with the credit guarantee limit of KRW 350,000,000,000,000 for guarantee method, trade finance and guarantee period from March 26, 2007 to March 26, 2008. Accordingly, the plaintiff issued a credit guarantee agreement of this case with the Korea Exchange Bank of Korea (hereinafter "Korea Exchange Bank") with the above credit guarantee limit, guarantee method, guarantee period, and type of loan as the trade financing and payment guarantee related to the trade financing and payment guarantee of the credit guarantee of this case; the "re-guarantee guarantee" of the first credit guarantee agreement of this case refers to the guarantee of each of the credit guarantee contracts of this case continuously to guarantee obligations arising within the scope of the credit guarantee limit and the importer's debt guarantee period within the specific column of the export guarantee period or the specific column of the guarantee contract of this case.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee should be deemed as a collateral guarantee that guarantees trade finance-related obligations to KSC foreign exchange banks continuously and repeatedly arising within the scope of the credit guarantee limit and guarantee period as stated in the first credit guarantee statement of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below held otherwise that the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee is an individual guarantee for the confirmation obligation whose obligation and maturity are specified solely on the ground that the credit transaction between KSC and the foreign exchange bank solely based on the credit guarantee form No. 1 of this case was issued on the date of issuance of the letter of credit guarantee No. 1 of this case, and that the maturity is limited to the trade bill loans as of March 26, 2008. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the disposal document, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where a person who guarantees a liability for reimbursement due to the performance of a credit guarantee obligation as a collateral guarantee terminates a guarantee contract lawfully before the obligation for a credit guarantee becomes final and conclusive, the relationship with a guarantee contract is terminated before a specific credit guarantee occurs. Thus, even if the credit guarantee obligation of a credit guarantee agency is finalized due to the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident, and further the principal debtor's liability for reimbursement is finalized, a recourse guarantor is not liable for any guarantee regarding the obligation (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da11826, Jun. 26, 1998; 2005Da61195, May 31, 2007). This legal principle also applies to a case where the guarantee period has been extended due to the extension of the transaction period under the principal contract, but the guarantee period has not been extended in relation to a recourse guarantor, and thus the relationship

According to the facts established by the court below, KNC concluded a credit transaction agreement with 750 million won on September 12, 2007 with the foreign exchange bank until March 26, 2008, and 750 million won on March 26, 2008. It was extended to 30 billion won on March 26, 2008 (up to August 26, 2008) with the payment due date of 200 million won on March 26, 2008, KNC concluded a credit guarantee agreement with 200 million won on March 24, 2008 for the extension of the guarantee period of the first credit guarantee agreement and the credit guarantee period of the above credit guarantee agreement with 205 billion won on March 24, 2008, and the credit guarantee period of 300 million won on March 27, 2008, which was extended to 200 million won by 300,000 won.

We examine the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

The Plaintiff’s credit guarantee under the credit guarantee contract of this case constitutes a continuous guarantee for the guarantor’s continuing guarantee of an uncertain obligation arising out of continuous transactional relationship, i.e., lending from a foreign exchange bank within the scope of its credit guarantee limit and guarantee period. Defendant 1’s guarantee contract established with the Plaintiff also constitutes a continuous guarantee contract as it guarantees ecenc’s uncertain liability upon the Plaintiff’s continuous performance of guarantee contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da10890, Nov. 24, 1992). In addition, the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee guarantee contract of this case becomes final and conclusive at the time of termination of the credit guarantee contract of this case’s credit guarantee contract as of the date of termination of the guaranteed obligation of the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee contract without any reason prescribed by the Presidential Decree during the term of the above credit guarantee contract (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da11826, Jun. 26, 198).

Nevertheless, the court below held otherwise on the ground that Defendant 1 is liable for guarantee on the ground that Defendant 1’s credit guarantee is an individual guarantee for the confirmed debt whose obligation and maturity are specified, on the ground that the guarantee period of Defendant 1 had already been established at the time of expiration of the guarantee period of Defendant 1, and subsequently partially accepted Defendant 1’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant 1, and accepted Defendant 3 and Defendant 4’s claim for revocation of fraudulent act. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on continuous guarantee, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants 2 and 5

A. As to the ground of appeal on the deception by Codefendant 2 of the first instance trial

The court below rejected Defendant 2’s assertion that Defendant 2’s assertion that Defendant 2’s credit guarantee agreement of this case is revoked because it belongs to Defendant 2’s deception, which would take charge of the operation of the factory, was signed on the second credit guarantee agreement of this case. The court below rejected Defendant 2’s assertion on the ground that the admitted evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge Defendant 2’s assertion on the deception of joint Defendant 2 of the court of first instance, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff, who is the other party

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of logical and empirical rules and free evaluation of evidence.

B. As to the ground of appeal related to the revocation of fraudulent act

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant 2 may be the preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation, and that the instant gift agreement that Defendant 2 donated to Defendant 5, the real estate listed in attached Table 2 of the lower judgment, the sole property of which was the Defendant 2, constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, constitutes a fraudulent act, and that Defendant 5’s bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed. Furthermore, the lower court rejected it on the ground that

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the occurrence of preserved claims, intention of murder and injury, and the good faith

C. As to the ground of appeal on the non-exercise of right to explanation

The gist of the allegation in the grounds of appeal in this part is that the defendants 2 and 5 are incompetent to pleading, and thus, it is unlawful to exercise the right to ask for the court below or to take measures such as ordering the appointment of an attorney so as to allow them to properly assert and prove the litigation without a legal representative. However, in light of the records, the above defendants' failure to do so is not deemed to have the ability to present opinions, and thus, the grounds of appeal

D. As to the scope of guarantee liability and the grounds of appeal on mistake induced by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s implied deception

Each of the grounds of appeal on this part is not a legitimate ground of appeal since Defendant 2 and Defendant 5 asserted that they were not asserted in the fact-finding court, or they asserted the omission of judgment by the lower court as to such assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against Defendant 1 and the part against Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All appeals by Defendants 2 and 5 are dismissed, and the costs of appeal by Defendants 2 and 5 are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)