[2] Where security has been lost or decreased due to the creditor's intentional or negligent act, whether the guarantor's claim for exemption from liability is made (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that in case where a creditor transferred a security right to a part of the subrogation in excess of the rate of subrogation by the creditor, the other guarantor is exempted from the liability for guarantee within the extent of the amount which could have been distributed by the exercise of the security right as a statutory subrogation by performing the guarantee obligation

[4] The meaning of "when a security is terminated without the consent stipulated as an exemption under the credit guarantee terms and conditions"

[2] The surety is a person who has a legitimate interest in the repayment of the obligation of the surety and is naturally entitled to statutory subrogation to subrogate the obligee due to the performance of the obligation. Therefore, in a case where the obligee intentionally or negligently causes loss of or decreases in the collateral, barring any other special circumstances, it shall be infringed on the obligee's subrogation right, and the surety shall be entitled to demand the discharge to the extent that it cannot be repaid due to its loss or reduction pursuant to Article 485 of the Civil Code.

[3] The case holding that, in case where a creditor transferred the entire collateral to a part of a subrogated person beyond the rate of subrogated by the creditor, the creditor is not liable for the guarantee to the extent of the amount which could have been paid by the exercise of the right of statutory subrogation as a statutory subrogation against the creditor, since the creditor, who made a partial subrogation of the secured obligation of the right of collateral, has intentionally lost the security of the claim by another guarantor who exercised the right of statutory subrogation

[4] In a case where "the physical and human security related to the guarantee loan without the consent of the Fund after the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident" is stipulated as one of the reasons for the exemption of the guarantor, it is reasonable to view that the termination of the security at that time includes not only the termination of the security contract, but also all the acts of reducing or losing the security that could have been acquired if the guarantor had performed the guaranteed obligation.

1. As to the first, third, and fourth points

In a case where a person who has a legitimate interest to repay part of a claim on behalf of a debtor makes a payment by subrogation for the debtor, the subrogated person shall acquire the rights to the claim and security held by the former creditor within the extent of the value of the performance performed by him/her, and in a case where the creditor has a mortgage over real estate, the obligee shall be liable to make an additional registration of partial payment by subrogation to the subrogation (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1797, Sept. 27, 198). Since a credit guarantee business of the Credit Guarantee Fund provides for the guarantee of the loan obligation owed by the company to the financial institution, it constitutes a guaranteed obligation under the Civil Act. Therefore, as the Credit Guarantee Fund is a person who has a legitimate interest to repay the debt of the company that is the guarantor and the creditor has a legal subrogation right to subrogate the creditor as a matter of course due to such payment, and if the creditor bank loses or reduces the security by intention or negligence, the subrogation right of the Credit Guarantee Fund shall be infringed, and the Credit Guarantee Fund shall be exempted from liability pursuant to Article 485 of the Civil Act.

원심은, 피고의 면책항변에 대하여, 그 내세운 증거에 의하여 소외 한밭실업 주식회사(이하 소외 회사라고만 한다)는 1992. 4. 18. 피고의 신용보증하에 원고로부터 금 80,000,000원을 대출받았는데, 소외 회사가 1992. 10. 20. 부도를 내어 대출금에 대한 기한의 이익을 상실하자 원고는 같은 달 22. 피고에게 그 사실을 알리고 1993. 1. 30. 피고에게 소외 회사의 대출원리금 84,258,630원(대출원금 80,000,000원＋이자 4,258,630원)에 대한 보증채무의 이행을 요구한 사실, 이에 피고는 1993. 6. 17. 원고가 지급을 요구한 금원 중에서 원금 53,200,316원 및 그 날까지의 이자 금 7,833,424원을 지급한 사실, 한편 원고는 1992. 1. 20. 이 사건 각 부동산지분에 관하여 채무자를 소외 회사, 채권자를 원고, 채권최고액을 금 400,000,000원으로 한 근저당권설정등기를 하였다가, 1992. 3. 30. 위 채권최고액을 금 200,000,000원으로 변경하는 등기를 한 사실, 원고는 소외 회사가 부도를 낸 후 피고와 소외 신용보증기금에 각 보증채무의 이행을 최고한 1993. 1. 30. 당시 위 근저당권의 피담보채무는 ① 피고가 보증한 위 금 80,000,000원의 대출원리금채무, ② 위 신용보증기금이 보증한 금 20,000,000원의 대출금 채무, 금 100,000,000원의 당좌대출금채무, 금 40,000,000원의 대출금채무, 금 157,021,944원의 기업적금 대출금채무, 금 80,000,000원의 대출금채무와 위 신용보증기금이 금 120,000,000원의 한도에서 보증한 할인어음채무 금 131,150,000원, ③ 금 150,000,000원의 보증대출금채무, 금 77,170,472원의 원화대불금채무가 있어 각 원금의 합계액이 금 835,342,416원에 달한 사실, 그런데 원고는 1993. 3. 25. 위 신용보증기금으로부터 그가 신용보증한 위 ②항의 채무원금 합계 금 517,021,944원과 그에 대한 이자 금 29,599,996원을 변제받고는 1993. 3. 27. 위 신용보증기금에게 위 근저당권의 이전등기를 마치었고, 위 신용보증기금은 이 사건 근저당권에 기한 임의경매절차에서 1993. 9. 21. 금 200,000,000원을 배당받은 사실을 각 인정한 다음, 이 사건 근저당권의 피담보채무는 금 835,342,416원의 대출원리금 등이라고 할 것이므로 위 신용보증기금은 그 중 일부인 금 517,021,944원의 채무를 대위변제함으로써 이 사건 근저당권의 피담보채무 중 위 대위변제금의 비율 범위에서만 이 사건 근저당권을 법정대위할 수 있고 그 나머지 비율에 관하여는 채권자인 원고 또는 나머지 피담보채무의 대위변제자가 여전히 이 사건 근저당권을 행사할 수 있다고 할 것인데, 원고가 위 신용보증기금에게 그가 대위변제한 비율을 넘어 이 사건 근저당권 전부를 이전해 줌으로써 결국 이 사건 근저당권의 피담보채무 중 일부를 대위변제한 피고가 법정대위권을 행사할 수 있는 채권의 담보를 고의로 상실되게 하였다고 할 것이어서, 피고는 위 보증채무를 이행함으로써 채권자인 원고에 대한 법정대위권자로서 이 사건 근저당권을 실행하여 배당받을 수 있었던 금 19,153,820원{200,000,000원(이 사건 근저당권의 실행으로 인한 배당금)×0.0957691(80,000,000원/835,342,416원, 이 사건 근저당권 중 피고의 법정대위권 비율)}의 한도에서 보증의 책임을 면한다 고 할 것이므로 피고의 위 주장은 위 범위에서 이유 있다(이와 달리 피고가 보증한 소외 회사의 대출금채무는 이 사건 근저당권의 피담보채무에 포함되지 않는다거나 또는 이 사건 근저당권의 채권최고액이 모든 법정대위권자를 만족시킬 수 없으므로 어느 한 법정대위권자에게 전부를 이전하여도 무방하다는 원고의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.)고 판단하였는바, 원심의 이러한 인정과 판단은 위에 설시한 법리에 비추어 옳다고 여겨지고, 거기에 상고이유의 주장과 같은 심리미진이나 근저당권의 피담보채무를 오해한 위법, 변제자대위에 관한 법리를 오해한 위법 및 변제자대위에 관한 특약의 주장에 대한 판단유탈의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

In addition, the gist of the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 is merely KRW 124,719,244, which was paid by Nonparty Credit Guarantee Fund through the execution of the instant right to collateral security, and the Defendant’s exemption scope should be determined based on the above amount. However, the lower court did not err by failing to determine the lower court, although it alleged that the above Credit Guarantee Fund received dividends of KRW 200,000,000 through the execution of the right to collateral security, and the lower court determined the Defendant’s exemption scope based on the above amount shall be deemed to include the purport of rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion. Therefore, the ground of appeal that the lower court erred by failing to determine the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In this case, the court below's assertion that the transfer of the right to collateral security in this case to the above Credit Guarantee Fund, a legitimate legal subrogation, does not constitute "when the security was terminated" as stipulated in the terms and conditions of credit guarantee contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, the defendant cannot be exempted from liability. According to the evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that "when the defendant terminates physical and human security related to the loan without the consent of the Fund after the occurrence of the credit guarantee accident" (Article 14 subparagraph 11 of the Credit Guarantee Clause) as one of the grounds for exempting the guarantee obligation of the plaintiff. However, the termination of the security at this time includes not only the termination of the security contract, but all the acts that the defendant would have acquired if the defendant performed the guarantee obligation, and therefore, the above argument by the court below is justified. In light of the records, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below is erroneous, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the statement of disposal documents as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

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)