[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Gong1, 1988, 1335)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

A. Defendant Kim Sung-sung and Jeon Jong-tae shall be jointly and severally paid KRW 250,602,446, whichever is below, and KRW 187,248,482 as described in the following sub-paragraph (b) shall be jointly and severally paid to Defendant Jeon-do, and KRW 88,447,92 as described in the sub-paragraph (c) below, and KRW 14,741,320 as stated in the sub-paragraph (d) shall be jointly and severally paid to Defendant Jeon-do, and KRW 14,741,320 as stated

B. Defendant Jeondo shall be paid KRW 187,248,428 jointly and severally with Defendant Kim Sung-sung and Jeon Jong-dae, and KRW 66,087,69 among which the amount of KRW 11,014,616 shall be paid jointly and severally with Defendant Jeondo, and KRW 11,014,616, respectively.

C. Defendant Jeondo shall be paid KRW 88,447,922 jointly and severally with Defendant Kim Sung-sung and Jeon Jong-dae, and KRW 66,087,69 among them shall be paid jointly and severally with Defendant Jeondo;

D. The order of the pre-sale of Defendant is paid KRW 14,741,320, jointly and severally with Defendant Kim Jong-sung and Jeon Jong-dae, and KRW 11,014,616 among them shall be paid jointly and severally with Defendant Jeon Jong-do.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Jeon Soo-do and Jeon Soo-tae are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

With respect to Defendant Jeondo-do, each of the evidence Nos. 4, 5-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 8, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 10, Gap evidence Nos. 11-1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 12, 13-1 through 3, and the testimony of the above witness and Kim Tae-tae-tae, which have no dispute over each of the above testimony, can be acknowledged as follows, comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the arguments, and as to the facts acknowledged under the following subparagraphs, the above defendants did not appear at the date of pleading without legitimate service by public notice, and they did not clearly dispute the facts so. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above defendants did not appear at the date of pleading as well as the plaintiff's assertion.

The Plaintiff Bank lent money to Nonparty Jae-man, who operates a new salt industry under the joint guarantee of Defendant Kim Sung-sung and Jeon Jong-dae, for five times from January 9, 1979 to December 31, 1982, such as the loan details in the attached Form of the statement of damages for delay, on the basis of general loans, general loans for business facilities, general loans for export industrial facilities, etc., the due date for payment falls under each item of subparagraph (d) of the same Table. Interest and damages for delay shall be based on the rate set by the Plaintiff Bank within the scope of the rates set by the Monetary Board and the Korea Financial Services Commission in accordance with the Acts and subordinate statutes, and shall be based on the changed rate from the date of change if the rate is changed. Even if the obligor fails to pay part of the debt owed to the Plaintiff Bank, or is imposed a transaction suspension disposition by the clearing-house, the Plaintiff Bank agreed to determine the order and method of appropriation in the event that the amount repaid by the obligor is insufficient to extinguish the total amount of the debt.

On the other hand, with respect to the obligations stipulated in paragraphs (3) through (5) of the same Table among the above loans, the defendant Jeondo, who was employed as a regular director of the above new salt industry company, has also jointly and severally guaranteed it with the defendant Kim Jong-sung and Jeon Jong-dae (the defendant Jeondo retired from the above new salt industry company around the beginning of 1977).

After that, the Nonparty, from September 28, 1979 to September 28, 1979, did not pay interest on the loan obligations under paragraphs (3) through (5) of the same Table, thereby losing the benefit of time pursuant to the above agreement.

However, as the above non-party died on May 7, 1987, the debt of the non-party was inherited at the ratio of 17 percent of the total number of the defendant Kim Sung-sung, his wife, the defendant Jeon Jong-do, his wife, the 6/17th of each of his wife, the 4/17 of the total number of his wife, and the 17th order of the total name of the defendant, who is his wife, and his wife.

On the other hand, the plaintiff collected the principal of the above loan (the amount recovered as of January 18, 1985 among them) as stated in the statement in the statement in the same table, and received the full payment of interest and delay damages on each of the above loans by the corresponding day on each of the above loans as stated in the final date on which the plaintiff paid the principal of the loan to the principal of the loan in this case by exercising the security right related to the loan obligations of this case, and in the auction procedure, he paid the amount distributed to the principal of the loan of this case prior to the execution of the loan obligation of this case).

2. Determination as to the assertion of Defendant Jeon Soo-do

Based on the above facts, the plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay from January 18, 1985, which is the date following the day after the date of the above final acceptance of the remaining principal as to the remaining principal stated in Paragraph (i) of the same Table, the defendant first and jointly guaranteed by him. The above loan obligations are extinguished by obtaining new loans from the plaintiff bank and filling it in the repayment of the remaining principal when the above non-party repaid part of the principal on the repayment date of each loan obligations. The loan obligations of the plaintiff's assertion were newly incurred through the above new loan, and there was no fact that the defendant jointly guaranteed the above new loan obligations, and thus, the plaintiff's claim against the same defendant is unjustifiable. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge them, and the so-called "large exchange" which is appropriated for the repayment of the existing debt by the bank to the debtor, as argued by the defendant, constitutes a new loan formally, but it is nothing more than an extension of the payment period of the existing debt, and thus the existing debt is extinguished again, and it is also valid as a guarantee or defense of the defendant.

Then, the defendant guaranteed the debt of this case by reason of the non-party's joint and several sureties's joint and several sureties's joint and several sureties's office as executive director. Since he retired from the above company around early 1977 and notified the plaintiff bank of the cancellation of the joint and several sureties's contract, the guaranteed debt was extinguished. Thus, the defendant cannot unilaterally rescind the joint and several sureties's contract which has already been effective only on the ground that the defendant retired from the above company. Thus, the above defense of the defendant is without merit (the defendant's guarantee contract of this case was inevitably concluded at the request of the above non-party while in office as executive officer of the above company, and it is argued that the guarantee contract of this case was null and void as an unfair juristic act.

Furthermore, although the defendant asserts that the guarantee obligation of this case was extinguished due to the prescription, on January 18, 1985, the plaintiff bank exercised the security right related to the debt of this case on January 17, 1990, before five years have passed since the principal of the loan of this case was recovered, and in such a case, the interruption of prescription against the principal debtor also affects the joint guarantor, so the defendant's claim for the extinction of prescription or non-existence of prescription (the defendant's other bank extended money to the above non-party in excess of the loan limit of the above bank, and the plaintiff did not communicate to the defendant who is the joint guarantor after the expiration of 14 years from the conclusion of the above guarantee contract, and the defendant's claim for reduction of the loan of this case against the defendant who is the joint and several surety of this case cannot be asserted as unlawful because it did not violate the principle of trust and good faith merely because the plaintiff's claim for reduction of the loan of this case's loan of this case against the defendant who is the joint and several surety is the joint and several surety, even though the above non-party's's's's's's claim that it did not violate the above.

3. Calculation of damages for delay.

According to the above facts, damages for delay of the remaining obligations of each of the above loans shall be KRW 250,602,446, including each of the amounts listed in column (D) of the same Table by the formula of (i) the remaining principal stated in item (i) of the same Table 】 (the corresponding number of delayed days / 365 (m) / 100) / 10). Meanwhile, upon the death of the above non-party, the above non-party's obligations of the above non-party inherited each of the above non-party's debts according to the above ratio of the defendant Kim Sung-sung, Jeon-do, Jeon-do, Jeon-dae, Jeon-dae, and Jeon-dae were succeeded to each of the above successors, but his respective inheritance obligations are joint and several surety of each of the above successors, and their respective inheritance obligations are extinguished due to confusion with

4. Conclusion

As such, Defendant Kim Jong-sung and Jeon Jong-sung shall be jointly and severally liable for damages for delay for each of the above obligations, KRW 250,60,446 shall be paid, and KRW 187,248,482, which is the joint and several liability indicated in paragraph (3) through (5) above shall also be jointly and severally liable for the above obligations; KRW 88,47,922 (250,602,46 x 17) shall be jointly and severally liable for damages for damages for delay; KRW 14,741,320 (250,602,4461/17) shall be jointly and severally liable for damages for damages for delay; KRW 486,97 shall be jointly and severally liable for damages for damages for joint and several liability for the above obligations; KRW 186,47,97,786, which is the joint and several liability of the above Defendants, and KRW 486,786,47,7867,5,27,267, and47,7,867, of the inheritance of the above obligation.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)