[2] In a case where a credit guarantee agency provides that "the property owned by a joint and several surety is transferred, a security right is established, a provisional disposition, or a provisional registration is made in accordance with the loan guarantee agreement that is the requirements for exemption under the loan guarantee agreement that is made by the credit guarantee agency," whether the credit guarantee agency's failure to participate in the auction procedure constitutes the above disability

[3] The purport of the terms and conditions of a loan guarantee to the effect that the guarantee obligation of a credit guarantee agency is exempted in the event that a delay in the notification of a credit guarantee accident causes an

[2] In the case where the credit guarantee agency determines the " disability", which is the requirement for exemption in the standard for the exemption of the loan guarantee agreement made by the credit guarantee agency, as the "transfer of ownership, creation of security right (including the right of lease on a deposit basis and the registered lease), provisional disposition, and provisional registration," the property owned by the joint guarantor under the credit guarantee agreement and the credit guarantee agency prior to taking the measures for the preservation of the claim due to the delay in the notification of the credit guarantee accident by the creditor, it shall not be an example, but it shall be limited to the above case. Thus, the disability here means that the creditor who takes precedence over the exercise of the right to indemnity, during the delay in the notification of the creditor's credit guarantee accident, escape of the property or takes precedence over the guarantor's property,

[3] The provision that a guarantee obligation shall be exempted in the event a credit guarantee institution causes an obstacle to the preservation of claims by delaying the notification of a credit guarantee accident among the terms and conditions of a credit guarantee institution shall be interpreted to the effect that a guarantee obligation shall be discharged only if the creditor fails to notify the credit guarantee institution of such an accident within the time limit for notification

According to the records, Article 18 subparag. 7 of the Terms and Conditions for Partial Guarantee (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions of this case”) provides that “When the Fund fails to give notice of a credit guarantee accident by the deadline for notification under Article 7(1), resulting in an obstacle to preserving the Fund’s claims,” the Fund shall not be liable for all or part of the guaranteed obligations. Article 19 provides that “The Fund shall set the scope of exemption and shall be subject to the standards for exemption separately notified by the Fund to the creditors.” However, the concept of the above disability is defined as “the case where the Fund takes measures to preserve the claims due to delay in the creditor’s credit guarantee accident” before taking measures to protect the claims, “the property owned by the guarantor and joint and several sureties under the Credit Guarantee Agreement shall be subject to transfer of ownership

A juristic act shall be reasonably interpreted by the parties regardless of the parties’ internal intent. In particular, in a case where the content of a contract seriously affects the other party’s legal status as the content of a standardized contract prepared by one party, it shall be more strict interpretation in light of the purport of Articles 6(1) and 7 subparag. 2 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da71555, Mar. 23, 2001). In a case where the standard for exemption from the standardized loan guarantee agreement created by the defendant himself/herself is hindered, the ownership transfer, security right (including lease on a deposit basis and registered lease), provisional disposition, if any, shall be limited not to the above cases, but to the above cases. Accordingly, it shall be limited to the extent that the standard for exemption from the standardized loan guarantee agreement of the defendant is not an example. Therefore, the obstacle referred to in the standard for exemption from the defendant’s credit guarantee agreement refers to the escape of the property subject to the right to indemnity or the senior creditor takes priority over the above property due to delay in the creditor’s exercise of the right.

In addition, the provision that a guaranteed obligation shall be exempted in the event of a delay in the notification of a credit guarantee accident among the terms and conditions of this case which causes an obstacle to the preservation of the claim. It should be interpreted to the effect that the defendant's obligation shall be exempted only in the case of a failure of the plaintiff to notify the time limit for the notification of the credit guarantee accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da71555, Mar. 23, 2001). According to the records, it can be known that the defendant's senior creditor's claim amount much exceeds the successful bid price of the real estate of this case, and since the defendant's participation in the auction procedure does not seem to have changed the successful bid price of the real estate of this case, even if the defendant participated in the auction procedure of the real estate of this case, it could not be distributed any dividend in the distribution procedure of the real estate of this case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant's failure to participate in the distribution procedure of the real estate of this case due to the plaintiff's delay

Nevertheless, the lower court did not examine the Plaintiff’s assertion in detail, and did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)