(b) Validity of a credit guarantee contract for which the amount of guarantee limit is not determined;

B. In the so-called credit guarantee that guarantees an unspecified debt that will be incurred in the future, the guarantee contract cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the guarantee limit was not determined.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In addition, in the case where the same person has made a physical guarantee by registering the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in order to secure an unspecified debt which will occur in the future from a continuous credit transaction relationship, whether the principal debt secured by the above credit guarantee and the collateral security obligation secured by the above collateral security are separate debt or otherwise, the intention of the contracting party is a problem.

According to Gap evidence No. 5, No. 10, Eul evidence No. 2-1, No. 2-2, and No. 6-1, and No. 3 of the same evidence duly adopted by the court below, the non-party No. 1, and the non-party No. 2 again on Nov. 9, 1978, the non-party No. 3 and the non-party No. 3 concluded a joint and several guarantee agreement between the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 3 on May 1, 1979 with the non-party No. 1 bank for the future against the non-party No. 1 bank. 3, and the above non-party No. 3 had registered the establishment of a mortgage on the real property owned by the non-party No. 1 as the debtor, and it is reasonable to view the above non-party No. 70,000,000 won as the collateral security agreement, as well as the amount of the collateral guarantee agreement.

In the above purport, the court below is just in holding that even though the plaintiff was granted 70,000,000 won of the successful bid price by subrogated execution of the above collateral security by the plaintiff, the non-party 3 was merely a performance of the obligation to repay each share of the joint and several sureties, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the omission of judgment or the non-party 3's performance of the obligation to repay the share

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The plaintiff is a special corporation established to assist and help enterprises which lack security capability under the Credit Guarantee Fund Act, and has special provisions concerning the establishment of guarantee relations, exercise of right to indemnity, collection of guarantee fees and penalty or damages, and joint and several liability relations. However, the guarantee contract of this case, which the plaintiff entered into between the plaintiff and the Jeju Bank Co., Ltd., and the principal debtor, is different from the guarantee under the Civil Act.

On the premise that the plaintiff's guarantee is different from the guarantee under the Civil Act, the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be viewed as a joint guarantor for the above non-party bank is merely an independent opinion, and there is no error of law by mistake in interpreting the joint guarantee under the Civil Act and the credit guarantee under the Credit Guarantee Fund Act such as the theory in the original judgment.

3. We examine the ground of appeal No. 3.

In light of the evidence No. 5, which was duly adopted by the court below, 10 evidence No. 5, the defendant concluded a joint and several guarantee contract between the non-party 1 corporation, the principal debtor and the non-party 5 corporation, on November 9, 1978, for the joint and several guarantee contract with the non-party 1 corporation, the main debtor, without setting the guarantee limit for the obligations on bills, borrowed money, and all other obligations, so the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense that the guarantee contract was invalidated due to the completion of the transaction is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the law of incomplete reasoning.

4. We examine the ground of appeal No. 4.

According to the records, when the plaintiff provides a credit guarantee to the non-party Jeju Bank twice, it is identical to the theory that the non-party 1, who was a director of the principal debtor company, did not cause the defendant to stand a joint and several surety. However, the court below's decision to the same effect is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the waiver of the right to indemnity. The argument is groundless.

5. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 5.

In the so-called credit guarantee that guarantees an unspecified amount of debt to be incurred in the future, it cannot be viewed that the guarantee contract is null and void only because it did not set the guarantee limit amount. Therefore, it is groundless to argue that the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

6. 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.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)