[1] Interpretation of a standardized contract as to the scope of secured debt stated in a mortgage contract signed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the same letter

[2] In a case where a right to collateral security without a term agreement is established for debt security arising from a continuous transaction, the elements for confirmation of the secured obligation and cancellation of the right to collateral security upon termination of the transaction

[1] As a written contract to establish a right to collateral security is a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, it should be interpreted as a written contract. However, in a case where the written contract to establish a right to collateral security is uniformly printed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the form of a general transaction clause, the scope of the secured obligation under the contract clause includes all existing obligations or all obligations arising out of other causes that may be borne in the future, in addition to the payment obligations arising from the continuous transaction of goods supplied by the establishment of the right to collateral security, even if it is reasonable to interpret the parties' intent as the purport that only the payment obligations arising from the transaction of goods is stipulated as the secured obligation of the right to collateral security, it is reasonable to exclude the binding force of the written contract by deeming that the all-inclusive provision on the secured obligation is merely an example

[2] Where the term of existence is not agreed to secure a debt arising from a continuous contract, if the principal debt expected to be a collateral becomes no longer likely to occur due to the termination of the transactional relationship, the remaining debt will be finalized as a collateral by the collateral. In this case, a debtor who has created the collateral security or a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property may seek confirmation of the secured debt by declaring his/her intention to the mortgagee, and if it did not exist at the time of confirmation, he/she may seek cancellation of the collateral security.

[1] Articles 357(1) and 360 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 357(1) of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu26915 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1568) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu12152 delivered on July 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1684 delivered on November 27, 1992) Supreme Court Decision 92Da40785 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 265), Supreme Court Decision 94Da8969 delivered on November 25, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 83) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da1799 delivered on December 14, 1993 (Gong194, 358 delivered on April 194, 199)

Plaintiff (Attorney Oh Dong-dong, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Cheongan Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Kim Tae-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Na6544 delivered on November 30, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided that the non-party company's new distribution of superficies based on the above evidence ("non-party company's 1") was supplied to the defendant on credit on September 191, 191. The defendant requested the non-party company to provide the defendant with sufficient collateral for the credit payment to the non-party company. The non-party representative director of the non-party company was to provide the defendant with 29,108 square meters of forest land (hereinafter "real estate of this case") as collateral for the above credit payment obligations to the plaintiff 9 and the non-party 1 to the non-party 4, the non-party company's 90,000 livestock products sales contract and the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the non-party 9,000 livestock products sales contract and the non-party 1 to the above 9,0000 livestock products sales contract were not related to the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 2's collateral security contract.

B. As a written contract to establish a right to collateral security is a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, it should be interpreted as a written contract. However, in a case where the written contract to establish a right to collateral security is a contract which is uniformly printed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the form of a general transaction clause, the scope of the secured obligation under the contract clause includes not only the amount of obligation arising from the continuous transaction of goods supplied with the establishment of the right to collateral security but also all the obligations arising from other causes that may be borne in the future, as a whole, the intent of the parties to the contract is reasonable to interpret only the amount of obligation arising from the transaction of goods in question as the secured obligation of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da40785, Nov. 27, 1992; 89Meu12152, Jul. 10, 1990; 26, 1992).

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is just, and even if the mortgage contract of this case contains all obligations arising from credit transaction between the non-party company and the defendant, it is reasonable to view that the above contract is merely a printed example in light of the above facts, and the intention of the non-party company and the defendant who are the party concerned is reasonable to interpret that the scope of the secured obligation of this case is limited to the credit payment obligation of the non-party to the defendant under the above livestock product shipping contract concluded between the non-party company and the defendant. The decision of the court below to the same effect is justified.

C. In a case where the term of existence is not agreed to secure the obligation arising from a continuous contract, if the original obligation expected to be a secured obligation becomes no longer likely to occur due to the termination of the transactional relationship, the remaining obligation will be finalized as the obligation secured by the right to collateral. In this case, a debtor who has created the right to collateral security or a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property may seek confirmation of the secured obligation with the declaration of intention to the mortgagee, and if it has not existed at the time of such confirmation, he/she may seek cancellation of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da17959, Dec. 14, 1993; 93Da19047, Apr. 26, 1994).

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, since the transaction period stipulated in the above livestock product shipping contract between the non-party company and the defendant, which is a continuous contractual relationship which serves as the basis of the instant right to collateral security, has expired on October 5, 192, no possibility exists that the original obligation would accrue as the collateral obligation of the instant right to collateral security, and at the time of termination of the said transaction, the non-party company did not have the obligation of the non-party company under the above contract. Thus, the plaintiff, who is the surety of the instant right to collateral security, may seek the confirmation of the secured obligation by declaration of intention to the defendant, and seek the cancellation of the registration of creation of the instant superficies

However, according to the records, the plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the contract to establish the right to collateral security and superficies of this case by delivering a preparatory document dated December 15, 1994. Thus, this can be seen as seeking cancellation of the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security and the establishment of superficies of this case as long as the plaintiff seeks to confirm the secured obligation of this case and did not have the secured obligation. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion should be accepted as including such purport and the plaintiff's claim should be accepted.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the contract to establish the right to collateral security and superficies between the plaintiff and the defendant of this case was lawfully terminated on December 14, 1994, which included the plaintiff's declaration of intention to terminate the contract, and that the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above right to collateral security and superficies creation with respect to the real estate of this case. However, it is inappropriate for the court below to have determined that the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above right to collateral security and superficies creation with respect to the real estate of this case. However, there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation on the grounds for termination of the contract

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the non-party company held a board of directors on January 18, 1992 and decided to accept KRW 1,068,100,920 for the defendant's credit payment obligation of the non-party 1,068,100,920 for the non-party 1,00 won for the non-party 1,00 Korean comprehensive food company, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it except for the evidence to reject the defendant's argument. In light of the records and comparison of relevant evidence, the above fact-finding of the court

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)