[2] The nature, effect, and method of exercising the right of indemnity of the surety and the right of subrogation of the surety

[3] Whether the so-called contract to establish a collateral security shall apply to a claim based on the right to indemnity of a surety (negative)

[2] Where a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's obligation has repaid his/her obligation, he/she shall, as a matter of course, subrogate the obligee pursuant to Article 481 of the Civil Code at the same time with the right to indemnity against the obligor pursuant to Article 341 of the Civil Code which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 370, and at the same time, he/she shall subrogate the obligee pursuant to Article 481 of the Civil Code. The above right to indemnity and subrogation are different from the contents of the original, due date, interest, and delay damages, and the surety is free to exercise the obligee's right to indemnity regardless of whether he/she exercises his/her own right to indemnity. However, where the obligee is subrogated, he/she may exercise his/her right to claim and its security within the scope

[3] In light of the language and text, the right which a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property transferred without compensation to the creditor at the time of the creditor's request, and which is not exercised during the transaction of the debtor and creditor, is not the right of indemnity against the debtor, but the right of indemnity against the creditor acquired from the creditor by subrogation of written contract as it is not the right of indemnity against the debtor, the claim by the third party who acquired the claim for indemnity by transfer based on the right of indemnity against the creditor is not subject to

1. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and held that even if a person who has pledged his property to secure another's property sells the mortgaged property to a third purchaser, if the third purchaser takes over the obligation to secure another's property as collateral, it is merely an internal contract between the parties to purchase and sell the mortgaged property, and thus the obligation to secure another's property is not extinguished, and even if the security right to the mortgaged property is exercised, the original person who has pledged his property to secure another's property should acquire the right to indemnity against the debtor. According to the facts established by the court below, the non-party Y-man lost the ownership of the real property in the above auction procedure, and the defendant Y-man, a creditor, was paid the above auction price of KRW 500,000 among the above auction price and the defendant's obligation to secure the above dividends to the defendant, and thus, the above Y-man did not have any obligation to obtain the right to indemnity after the date of the above dividends and the above amount equivalent to the above dividends, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below's grounds for appeal.

2. On the first ground for appeal

The interpretation of a juristic act is to clearly confirm the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of expression. Although it is not an expression used in writing, the objective meaning given by the parties to the act of expression should be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written without any relation between the parties. If the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence of the expression of intent and its contents should be recognized. However, if the objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the parties’ text, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, social common sense, and common sense and transaction norms so that it conforms to the ideology of social justice and equity, comprehensively takes into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstances leading up to the juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the genuine intent of the parties, and transaction practices, and in particular, if the contents of the contract alleged by one of the parties impose a serious liability on the other party, it shall be more strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da6465, May 23, 1995).

According to Article 12 (1) of the above contract establishing a collateral of this case which was made on September 2, 1985 by a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's right to secure another's collateral, "if the person who has created the collateral of this case has performed his/her obligation, he/she shall not exercise the right acquired from the obligee by subrogation, and if the obligee's claim is made, he/she shall transfer his/her right or priority to the obligee free of charge to the obligee without compensation." In addition, the above leapman's right to the obligee's right to indemnity is no longer applicable to the obligee's right to the obligee's right to claim reimbursement as well as the obligee's right to claim reimbursement as it is based on the premise that the obligee's right to claim reimbursement is no longer applicable to the obligee's right to claim reimbursement as well as to the obligee's right to claim reimbursement as it is applicable to the obligee's right to claim reimbursement as well as to the obligee's right to claim reimbursement as well as to the obligee's right to claim reimbursement.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)