[2] In a case where an agreement to enter into a new basic transaction contract after the conclusion of a limited contract, or to renew the term of existing basic transaction contract and increase the transaction limit, falls under the category of basic transaction as stipulated in the original contract, and the obligation does not exceed the limit of the fundamental guarantee amount, whether it falls under the scope of the limited collateral guarantee obligation to obtain consent from the guarantor or to notify the guarantor of the limited collateral guarantee (negative in principle)

[2] Since a limited collateral guarantee contract is scheduled to separately conclude a basic transaction contract that belongs to the kind of basic transaction as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, even if an obligee and a principal obligor concluded a new basic transaction contract after the conclusion of a limited collateral guarantee contract, or agreed to renew the term of the existing basic transaction contract and increase the amount of the transaction limit, if it falls under the category of the original basic transaction, and if it does not exceed the total guarantee limit, it falls under the scope of the guaranteed obligation of the limited collateral guarantee, and unless there are special circumstances such as the existence of a separate agreement, it does not fall under the scope of the guaranteed obligation of the limited collateral guarantee.

1. As to the scope of the collateral guarantee obligation based on the instant collateral guarantee contract

A. A. A collateral guarantee can be extended to a debt arising from a specific type of transaction as well as a specific transaction contract between a creditor and a principal debtor, or a debt arising from a specific cause. Moreover, the principal obligation subject to collateral guarantee does not need to be either already or specifically specified at the time of entering into a collateral guarantee contract, and there is a standard to specify a future obligation, conditional obligation, as well as an unspecified and unspecified obligation expected to increase, decrease, or change in the future. As such, the collateral guarantee reserves the confirmation of the principal obligation subject to the collateral guarantee at the time of termination of the future collateral guarantee relationship, and the guaranteed obligation to be borne by a guarantor is specifically determined at the time of the completion of the collateral guarantee relationship.

On the other hand, in light of the above unique nature of the guarantee, in a case where the guarantee contract does not only guarantee the obligation arising out of a specific basic transaction contract, but also guarantee the obligation arising out of the specific transaction contract within the scope of the guarantee limit, which is the kind of basic transaction, or within the scope of the guarantee limit, pursuant to the current or future basic transaction contract, to guarantee the obligation arising prior to the settlement term for the settlement of contract based on the specific transaction contract, if the basic transaction contract, which is the cause of the principal obligation, can be identified as a basic transaction contract to be entered into in the future or the obligation arising out of the specific transaction contract, it does not affect the formation or effect of the guarantee contract even if the basic transaction contract which is the cause

In addition, the above limited contract is scheduled to be concluded separately, which belongs to the kind of basic transaction as determined by the Presidential Decree. Thus, even if a creditor and a principal debtor concluded a new basic transaction contract after the conclusion of the limited contract, or agreed to renew the term of the existing basic transaction contract and increase the limit amount, if it falls under the category of basic transaction as determined by the Presidential Decree, and if it does not exceed the limit amount of the contract, it falls under the scope of the guaranteed obligation of the limited contract, unless there are special circumstances such as the existence of a separate agreement, it shall be deemed that all it falls under the scope of the guaranteed obligation of the limited contract, and it shall not fall under the scope of the guaranteed obligation only if the guarantor's consent is obtained or the guarantor is notified.

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

① As to the scope of the guaranteed obligation, Article 1(1)2 of the instant contract provides for the scope of the guaranteed obligation, three types of collateral guarantees, such as specific collateral guarantees, limited collateral guarantees, and comprehensive collateral guarantees, are listed, and the guarantor selects any type of collateral guarantee, and the guarantor directly enters any type of collateral guarantee.

In addition, a specific contract guarantee defines the debtor as "any obligation to be borne at present and in the future due to transactions under the following agreements with the bank (main and branch offices)", and provides that the debtor shall enter directly the basic transaction agreements to specify the scope of the guaranteed obligation, and that the debtor defines "any obligation to be borne at present and in the future due to the following transactions with the bank (main and branch offices)" as "O transactions and OO transactions" under the direct direction to specify the scope of the guaranteed obligation. In addition, the limited contract guarantee defines as "any obligation to be borne at present and in the future due to the following transactions with the bank (main and branch offices):

In addition, Article 1 (1) 3 of the Labor-Guarantee Contract of this case states the amount of guarantee limit, which directly states the limit.

② Meanwhile, Article 1(1)4 of the instant contract provides for the period for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts.

In addition, regarding the future type of designation, the guarantor shall not be allowed to designate a period for the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts by written notice, but the period for the settlement of accounts shall be 14 days after the date of arrival of the notice, and if it falls short thereof, the period for the settlement of accounts shall be 14 days after the date of arrival of the notice, and the period for the settlement of accounts shall be 14 days after the date of arrival of the notice. In the case of the designation type, the letter "OOOOOOOOO" shall be prepared and the date for the settlement of accounts shall be directly entered, and in the case of the automatic settlement type, the statement like the above future designation type shall be stated, and in the case of the automatic settlement type, "if the guarantor has not expressed any separate opinion by the lapse of five years, the date

③ On November 25, 1998, the Defendants entered into the instant renewal guarantee contract between Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) and the Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) with a primary debtor as to the obligation to the Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”), and entered the instant renewal guarantee contract in the column that requires the entry of the type of collateral guarantee among the instant renewal guarantee contract, into a “Korea Credit Guarantee”, “Korea Trade Finance”, “import letter of credit”, “import letter of credit”, “influence of KRW 00,00 and US dollars,” “influence of KRW 00,000,000,000,” and “Korea Designation”, respectively.

C. In the lower court, the Defendants asserted that “Tex and Foreign Exchange Bank entered into a trade finance and import L/C credit guarantee transaction agreement with the Defendants to set the term of the agreement as of June 7, 199, and to secure it, the Defendants are liable for guarantee only for the obligations incurred until June 7, 1999.” Accordingly, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the contract of this case was not limited to the obligations arising from the trade finance and import finance or credit guarantee transaction with Boex’s foreign exchange bank, and the credit transaction with the import L/C issuing guarantee. The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that, within the scope of USD 650,000,000 and US dollars 650,000,000,0000 as the contract was to guarantee the settlement term of the settlement of the contract in a future by setting the term of the settlement of the settlement of accounts for the settlement of accounts for the loan, and thus, the term of the contract was not limited to the obligations arising from the above individual credit transaction and credit transaction.

D. According to the records, it is recognized that Botex and Foreign Exchange Bank entered into a credit transaction agreement on November 25, 1998, setting the credit transaction agreement at the rate of 500,000,000,000 per credit item, the agreed credit limit amount, 500,000,000 per annum on June 7, 1999, interest and guarantee fee rate of 9+1.0% per annum on June 7, 1999, and 20% per annum on June 2, 199, and thereafter, entered into a credit transaction agreement on June 2, 199.

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and facts, the instant collateral guarantee is not a specific collateral guarantee that only guarantees obligations arising within the agreed term of the relevant basic transaction contract under a specific basic transaction contract, but a limited collateral guarantee that guarantees obligations arising within the agreed term of the relevant basic transaction within the limit of guarantee for the present or future basic transaction contract, which is the kind of the relevant basic transaction, or within the limit of guarantee for the settlement of accounts under the future basic transaction contract. In other words, the instant collateral guarantee contract, as seen above, is intended to conclude a new basic transaction contract, which falls within the category of the relevant basic transaction, between the future creditor and the principal debtor, and to include the obligations arising therefrom in the scope of the limited collateral guarantee for the limited collateral guarantee. Accordingly, the instant credit transaction agreement concluded between Botex and the foreign exchange bank and the credit guarantee agreement between Jun. 2, 199 and the import credit transaction agreement between Jun. 7, 199.

Even if Botex and foreign exchange banks concluded a new basic transaction contract after the date of the instant guarantee contract, or concluded an agreement to renew the term of the existing basic transaction contract and increase the transaction limit, if that agreement belongs to the type of basic transaction as determined by the time of the instant guarantee contract, and if that agreement does not exceed the guarantee limit amount of the instant guarantee contract, it shall be deemed that all of them belong to the scope of the guaranteed obligation of the instant guarantee contract. In addition, unless there is any other evidence to acknowledge that there exists a separate agreement, it shall not fall under the scope of the guaranteed obligation of the instant guarantee contract, unless the Defendants consented to the conclusion, etc. of the new basic transaction contract or notified the Defendants thereof.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to limited collateral guarantee or the scope of the guaranteed obligation, or by omitting judgment, affecting the conclusion

2. As to Defendant 1’s guarantee limit

Although the court below did not determine whether the total guarantee amount of each of the instant contract and each of the instant guarantee limits concluded between Defendant 1 and foreign exchange banks is to guarantee the principal obligation of Botex independently or within the scope not exceeding the largest amount of guarantee limit, it is clear that the court below’s 500,000,000 won, which the court below ordered Defendant 1 to pay to the Plaintiff, belongs to the maximum limit of guarantee amount of the instant contract, and its conclusion is justified.

In addition, whether the guarantee limit of each of the instant continuing guarantee contracts and each of the subsequent continuing guarantee contracts is in a overlapping relationship, and whether foreign exchange banks exempted Defendant 2 and the deceased Nonparty from the continuing guarantee obligations based on the instant continuing guarantee contracts is not logical and inevitable. Therefore, the judgment on the former does not affect the judgment on the latter.

Therefore, this part of the ground of appeal is just an assertion of illegality of omission of judgment which cannot affect the judgment, and thus cannot be accepted.

3. As to whether the foreign exchange bank exempted Defendant 2 and the deceased Nonparty’s continuing guarantee obligation

Based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is insufficient to recognize that the foreign exchange bank exempted Defendant 2 and the deceased Nonparty from the collateral guarantee obligation based on the instant collateral guarantee contract, solely on the evidence or assertion submitted by Defendant 3, the party taking over the lawsuit against Defendant 2 and the deceased Nonparty, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors of misapprehending the legal principles regarding exemption from liability for guarantee, or exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence

4. As to whether the Plaintiff’s claim of this case violates the good faith principle

Based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is difficult to be deemed to be in violation of the good faith principle solely on the ground that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendants for a guarantee obligation after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the instant contract, based on the following: (a) the content of the instant contract, the purpose of the limited collateral guarantee system, and the timing and method of exercising rights

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the good faith principle.

5. As to the effect of interruption by participation in composition procedures

A. Article 41 of the former Composition Act (amended by Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same) provides that "participation in composition procedures shall be deemed a judicial claim with respect to interruption of prescription." Thus, in order for a creditor to participate in composition procedures, the extinctive prescription of a claim against a debtor shall be interrupted when he files a report on a composition claim in order to participate in composition procedures, and the interruption of prescription shall also be effective against a guarantor pursuant to Article 440 of the Civil Act. Such interruption of prescription shall also resume at the time when the decision of approval of composition becomes final and conclusive and conclusive. However, in cases where the period of payment of a composition claim is changed after the date of the final and conclusive decision of approval of composition, the extinctive prescription may be exercised against a principal debtor, and the period of payment of the composition claim shall continue to expire after the new decision of approval of composition becomes final and conclusive, regardless of Article 61 of the former Composition Act (amended by Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005). 298).

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is justifiable to have determined that the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, determined that the effect of extinctive prescription arising from the Plaintiff’s participation in the composition procedure commenced against Box as a principal obligor extends to the Defendants, a guarantor. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)