Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On June 27, 1989, the Defendant entered into a contract with a person who ordered the work and the Defendant as a contractor with respect to the construction work of the case M 16 road as the contractor, and on June 27, 1989, the mentor authorities demanded a performance guarantee certificate issued by the bank in the mentor's country or the international bank's branch registered as the mentor's country, in order to secure the return of advance payment (hereinafter the Defendant's obligation to return advance payment) paid in advance by the mentor to the Defendant in relation to the construction equipment and materials (hereinafter the Defendant's obligation to return advance payment), which is equivalent to 20% of the construction cost.

B. In Seoul, there was an Seoul Special Metropolitan City branch of the Plaintiff bank, which was named as the non-resident bank, like the Plaintiff bank, and owned by the same holding company, but the established non-resident law differs, and non-party 1, whose head office is Luxembourg, at the time of Non-Party 9, the Symna Corporation's Symna (hereinafter referred to as the "Non-party 1")'s private or branch of the Plaintiff bank (the bank was called as BCCI, the Plaintiff bank as OSI), the amount of 9. The Defendant provided the same guarantee number to the Seoul branch of the Plaintiff bank as the same bank and the amount of 9. The amount of 9.0 U.S. bank was issued to the 9.0 U.S. bank's 97 U.S. bank's 9.1 and the amount of 9.00 U.S. bank's 97 U.S. bank's 9.1 and the amount of 9.7 U.S. bank's 97. beneficiary.

C. According to the above letter of guarantee, the non-party bank, the guarantor, is obliged to pay to the guarantor the amount which the ordering person requests promptly, without prior notice or decision or administrative procedure, if the ordering person gives written instructions to protect the contractor’s authority from any liability or loss caused by the defendant’s neglect or defect, whether it is presumed that the contractor’s negligence or defect is substantial or estimated within the scope of the guaranteed amount, or not.

D. With respect to the issuance of the above guarantee certificate, the Seoul Branch of the Plaintiff bank concluded a reverse guarantee contract with the non-party bank company or branch at the time of the issuance of the above reverse guarantee certificate to secure the repayment of the expenses if the non-party bank or branch pays the deposit, and despite the parties to the contract or any objection by the Seoul Branch or any other party, the non-party bank or branch made a condition that the amount not exceeding the above guarantee amount should be paid if the claim is made by the non-party bank's company or branch without any condition (hereinafter referred to as the "first reverse guarantee"), and the Defendant also issued to the Seoul Branch of the Plaintiff bank with any objection, dispute, provisional attachment, seizure, and provisional disposition by the other parties or any other circumstances, which may be legitimate or legitimate exemption or defense against the Plaintiff within the scope of the above guarantee amount, and agreed to pay the above guarantee amount and interest thereon at the request of the bank or branch of the non-party bank, and the issuer of the non-party bank to whom the payment was made at its face value 91 and the issuer of the non-party bank will be paid at its face value 1.

E. On May 14, 1991, the mentor's authority claimed a payment of the deposit under the above guarantee letter against the non-party bank's company or branch. The above company or branch claimed a payment of the deposit under the reverse guarantee against the non-party bank's Seoul branch on the same day. The plaintiff bank or Seoul branch claimed a payment of the deposit under the second reverse guarantee against the defendant on the 15th of the same month. The plaintiff bank or Seoul branch claimed a payment of the deposit under the second reverse guarantee against the defendant on the 15th of the same month. In this case of provisional injunction against the plaintiff bank's Seoul Seoul branch, Seoul High Court 91Na425 case, the appellate court's appellate court's 93Da42524 case, its appellate court's 93Da4524 case, its appellate court's appellate court's 93Da4524 case, and its appellate court's appellate court's 250% of the deposit under the above guarantee letter 】 160% of the above 20160% of the exchange rate of the bill.

2. A. In relation to the Plaintiff’s filing of the payment of the above bill, the Defendant and the Nonparty bank set up a business suspension at the head office and branch office scattered in each country due to the suspicion related to the illegal capital transactions, and the liquidation procedure began. Accordingly, according to the second reverse guarantee, even if the Plaintiff bank and the Plaintiff bank pay each of their deposits to the Nonparty bank in accordance with the first reverse guarantee, it is impossible for the Nonparty bank to pay the deposits to the Nonparty bank, the ordering person under the above contract. Accordingly, even if the Defendant paid the Plaintiff bank the deposit, it is difficult for the Nonparty bank to pay the deposit to the Nonparty bank, which is the ordering person under the above contract. Accordingly, even if the Defendant paid the deposit to the Plaintiff bank, the Defendant’s obligation under the contract to the Nonparty’

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as evidence Nos. 2 through 5, evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, and 5-1 through 13 of the evidence Nos. 13, the Plaintiff bank and the non-party bank have operated its business in the names of non-party 10% of the non-party 1’s parent company’s non-party 10% of the non-party 2 and non-party 5’s total assets, including the Plaintiff bank and the non-party 1 bank, under the name of the non-party 2 and 10% of the non-party 5’s total assets, since the bank was owned by the above parent company and called the non-party 1 bank as its principal office, and since the non-party 2 and the non-party 5’s respective debt certificates were non-party 1 and their respective debt certificates were non-party 5’s debt certificates were non-party 1 and their debt certificates were non-party 1 and the bank still terminated and terminated in the following procedure.

C. In light of the above legal principles, if the non-party bank's repayment guarantee and the non-party bank's repayment guarantee were to be carried out by the beneficiary in writing, the non-party bank is bound to pay without presenting evidence as to the non-party's obligation. The non-party bank's repayment guarantee and the non-party bank's repayment guarantee and the non-party's second guarantee are merely non-party company's guarantee and non-party company's payment of the non-party bank's obligation under the non-party bank's terms and conditions which are separate from the underlying cause of the non-party bank's repayment guarantee and thus, the non-party bank's first guarantee and the non-party company's first guarantee and the non-party bank's second guarantee are merely non-party company's repayment guarantee and thus, the non-party bank's repayment guarantee and the non-party bank's second guarantee and the non-party bank's second guarantee are merely non-party company's repayment guarantee and non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's repayment guarantee and non-party company's second guarantee.

3. Ultimately, for the above reasons, the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of the Promissory Notes is unfair and it is so decided as per Disposition, which was based on the second reverse guarantee, for which the binding force against the Defendant cannot be recognized.

Judges Lee Ki-taik