[보험료][공1989.12.15.(862),1741]
The case holding that in the continuous guarantee contract, the liability for guarantee is not exempted or restricted solely on the grounds of delay in notification to the guarantor.
If a creditor urged the principal obligor to pay medical insurance premiums each month, which is the principal obligation, whenever the monthly payment of medical insurance premiums is delayed, and also endeavored to collect insurance premiums by seizing the principal obligor’s claims and movable property in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Medical Insurance Act and the National Tax Collection Act, the creditor, only after being delinquent in paying insurance premiums for six months, shall not be deemed to have exempted or restricted the guarantor’s liability on the sole basis of the fact that the
Articles 2 and 428 of the Civil Act
Seoul 10 Medical Insurance Cooperatives
Defendant
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 87Na2624 delivered on March 29, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In the continuous guarantee contract, the guarantor is in principle liable for the guarantee of the entire amount of the principal obligation at the time of guarantee. However, if the amount of the principal obligation to be returned to the guarantor's responsibility was anticipated or anticipated at the time of guarantee, the guarantor's liability for the guarantee can be limited to the expected scope. However, if the obligee who is the primary debtor clearly aggravated the property status of the primary debtor, and the cause of excess of the principal obligation is known to the obligee, the obligee can limit the guarantor's liability to the reasonable extent within the scope of the party members' reasonable limit (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu453, Oct. 10, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2143, Apr. 27, 1988). However, the court below's determination that the non-party's liability is not limited to the non-party's insurance premium exemption under the National Tax Collection Act or the non-party's legitimate reasons are not acknowledged for the non-party's delayed collection of the insurance premium from November 1, 1986.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won