[채무부존재확인][공1995.6.1.(993),1941]
The case denying the right to terminate a guarantee contract where a director who was involved in management as a major shareholder at the time of guarantee has resigned;
The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that, in case where a person who was involved in the management of the company by taking charge of the duties of the vice president, etc. as a major shareholder of the company since he was not a simple employment director but a major shareholder of the company, has been in the inside of the management of the company, and at the same time has resigned from office in order to concentrate on the management of the other company and has been employed again as an auditor and has continued to hold the status of the shareholder, it is difficult to say that it is not desirable for him to maintain the comprehensive employment guarantee contract concluded by him for the company in terms of social norms as a result of his resignation from office because he had a trust relationship with the company, and it cannot be deemed that the guarantor has been in the position of the director only because he was in the position of the director, the guarantee contract cannot be unilaterally terminated
Articles 428 and 543 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Korea Exchange Bank, Inc.
Busan High Court Decision 93Na7594 delivered on June 17, 1994
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
With respect to the first and second points
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff unilaterally retired from the position of director of the non-party 1 company and the non-party 2 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 2 company's non-party 9 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 2 company's non-party 9 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 9 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 2 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 9 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 9 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 2 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 9 company's.
In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds for termination of a continuous guarantee contract, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the declaration of intention to terminate the contract.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
On the third ground for appeal
The issue is that Article 1 of the Joint and Several sureties Agreement of this case can be terminated voluntarily after three years from the date of conclusion of the contract, and the provision that the document shall be written. Among them, the provision that the document requires shall be written is merely an example of the method of expression of intent of termination, but it does not have the effect of termination of the contract, and the decision of the court below recognized the validity of termination only after the date of declaration of intention of termination in writing.
However, the court below acknowledged that there was an expression of intent to terminate the contract of this case on September 5, 1991, because it was not due to the fact that the above expression of intent was made in writing, but it was not recognized that there was an expression of intent to terminate the contract of this case before it was made orally. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the purport of the court below's judgment that argued that it did not recognize the validity of the expression of intent to terminate the contract of this case and criticize it
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)