[2] The case holding that Gap and Eul who were in a friendly relationship with Eul are the principal debtor in the form of a bill transaction agreement with Eul for the financing of Byung without any consideration upon Eul's request, and Eul were the joint and several sureties, and Eul was aware of the circumstances, it shall be deemed that there was implied understanding that Byung's joint and several sureties's repayment of Byung's obligations in the internal relationship between Gap and Eul was the joint and several sureties, and therefore Gap is the joint and several sureties's obligation to compensate for 1/2 of the amount of Eul's subrogated payment

[3] In a case where a joint and several surety has repaid the principal obligation at his own expense and another joint and several surety exercises the right of subrogation for the reimbursement, whether the scope of exercise of the principal claim and security right by subrogation is limited to the scope of the right of reimbursement (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that although Gap and Eul are jointly and severally and severally liable for the payment of the discounted amount of the bill, Gap are not entitled to claim the payment of the discounted amount of the bill, since Eul and Eul are aware that the payment of the discounted amount of the bill is not in the form of the principal debtor, since Eul are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the discounted amount of the bill, Gap and Eul are liable for the payment of the discounted amount of the discounted amount of the bill as the principal debtor in the transaction agreement with Eul, and Eul are liable for the payment of the discounted amount of the bill, Eul are not entitled to claim the payment of the discounted amount of the bill, although Eul and Eul are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the discounted amount of the bill, and Gap are not liable for the guarantee or performance of the guaranteed amount of the bill which is payable under the above transaction agreement between Eul and Eul, and there is no special agreement between Gap and Eul as not to bear it, or there is no explicit or implied understanding between them, Gap and Eul as the joint and severally liable for the reimbursement of the agreed amount of the bill.

[3] Where a joint and several surety has repaid the principal obligation on behalf of the debtor at his own expense on behalf of the debtor, the creditor's claims and security rights held by the principal obligor and another joint and several surety are naturally transferred to the joint and several surety. However, subrogation is limited to the scope of the right to indemnity, in relation to the institution to secure the validity of the right to indemnity held by the principal obligor and other joint and several surety by repaying the principal obligation.

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 and the defendant's ground of appeal No. 1

Even though a person who has entered into a loan for consumption with a creditor is not the principal debtor in the relationship with the creditor, if he is not the actual principal debtor in the internal relationship, the joint guarantor who has performed the joint and several liability does not naturally assume the liability for indemnity against the joint and several sureties who has performed the joint and several liability. However, in case where the principal debtor in the form can be deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the actual principal debtor in the light of the substantive legal relationship between the actual principal debtor, the joint and several sureties and the third principal debtor in the form, the principal debtor in that form bears the liability for indemnity against the joint and several sureties in accordance with the exercise of the right between the joint guarantors

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a bill transaction agreement between the defendant and the non-party joint and several liability company (the non-party joint and several liability company) on October 14, 194. The plaintiff provided the defendant's joint and several liability under the above agreement with the non-party joint and several liability company as collateral for the above obligation. The defendant borrowed 192,579,62 won from the non-party joint and several liability company with the non-party joint and several liability for the above amount after the transaction period expires. The above bill transaction agreement with the non-party joint and several liability company was concluded by the non-party joint and several liability company's non-party company's non-party joint and several liability for reimbursement without the plaintiff's request, and the court below's decision that the non-party joint and several liability for the above amount was not established for the non-party company's indemnity agreement with the non-party joint and several liability company's non-party joint and several liability for reimbursement as collateral. The plaintiff is not liable for the non-party company's indemnity agreement with the non-party company's principal obligor.

2. On the second ground for appeal by the plaintiff

When a joint and several sureties performs the principal obligation on behalf of a debtor at his/her own expense on behalf of a debtor, the creditor's claims and security rights held by the principal debtor and other joint and several sureties are naturally transferred to a joint and several sureties. However, subrogation by the person who has performed the principal obligation is related to the institution to secure the validity of the right to indemnity held by the principal debtor and other joint and several sureties by repaying the principal obligation, and the scope of the exercise of the principal claim

The court below accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case as an exercise of the original claim within the limit of 1/2, which is the scope of the plaintiff's right to indemnity against the defendant, in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of law of omission of judgment as alleged in the ground of appeal. This ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. As to the defendant's second ground for appeal

In light of the records, it is difficult to view that the court below committed an unlawful act that did not exercise the right of explanation in relation to the existence of the defendant's objection to offset, or committed an unlawful act that did not exhaust all necessary deliberations. The ground of appeal pointing this out also cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)