[1] Whether a conclusive joint and several surety bears the guaranteed obligation even where the period during which the guaranteed obligation is due is extended without his/her consent (affirmative in principle), and the method of interpreting the disposal document

[2] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which held that the principal debtor Gap's joint and several liability extinguished, unlike the wording of the credit transaction agreement, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the disposal documents and the joint and several liability of the joint and several liability, in a case where the repayment date of debt was extended without Byung's consent, and the principal debtor Gap's loan's loan's repayment date was extended, the principal debtor Eul's joint and several liability should be continuously responsible for the extension of the repayment date

[1] Articles 105 and 428(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105 and 428(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da14853 Decided June 14, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1662), Supreme Court Decision 2008Da46531 Decided November 13, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da26769 Decided November 11, 201 (Gong2010Ha, 2241)

Do Public Savings Bank (formerly: Do residents Mutual Savings Bank, Ltd., Ltd.) (Attorney Lee Hong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Jeong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2011Na331 Decided August 26, 2011

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below acknowledged the facts stated in its holding, such as the fact that the principal debtor of the loan obligation of this case is jointly and severally guaranteed by the defendant when the principal debtor of the loan of this case loans of 30 million won from the plaintiff, and Article 12 (6) of the Credit Transaction Agreement of this case which provides that "if the repayment date of the loan under this agreement has been extended with the consent of the guarantor, the debtor will continue to follow the agreement under Article 1 of the Credit Transaction Agreement." This is that if the repayment date of the loan has been extended with the consent of the guarantor, the joint and several surety shall continue to follow the agreement under Article 1 of the first Credit Transaction Agreement, regardless of whether the due date of the debt repayment has been extended with the consent of the guarantor, the joint and several surety guaranteed by the principal debtor of the loan of this case is in principle liable for the joint and several liability without the consent of the defendant, which is an extension of the due date of the repayment of the principal debt of this case, the court below determined that the defendant's joint and several surety is liable for the guaranteed obligation of this case without the consent of this case.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

In principle, a joint and several sureties who guaranteed a certain obligation for a fixed obligation shall bear the obligation for the joint and several sureties regardless of their consent if the period during which the obligation is to be fulfilled is extended (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da14853, Jun. 14, 2002). In particular, if the objective meaning of the text is clear where a certain content of a contract is written between the parties as a disposal document and the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intent shall be recognized in accordance with the language, unless there are special circumstances. In a case where the objective meaning of the text is interpreted differently from the objective meaning of the text, which seriously affects legal relations between the parties, the contents of the language shall be more strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da46531, Nov. 13, 2008; 2010Da26769, Nov. 11

In light of the above legal principles, Article 12(6) of the instant agreement cited by the court below as the ground for the extinguishment of a guaranteed obligation is merely a provision on the obligor’s liability, and does not entirely mention the obligor’s liability. Thus, barring any special circumstance, interpreting the meaning of the above provision to the effect that “if the period during which the guaranteed obligation is due without the consent of a joint and several surety is extended, the obligation of the joint and several surety ceases to exist” goes beyond the objective meaning of the text. Therefore, in order to extend the repayment period at the time of the instant loan, if the consent of the joint and several surety is required for the extension of the repayment period, or if the period during which the guaranteed obligation is extended without the consent of the joint and several surety between the parties, it cannot be deemed that the liability of the joint and several surety ceases to exist merely because the initial repayment period has been extended before examining other circumstances to deem that the guaranteed obligation of the joint and several surety was extinguished. However, even if the language of the above provision concerns the obligor’s liability, such an agreement also becomes an exceptional if the repayment period is extended only with the consent of the guarantor.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s joint and several liability was extinguished by extending the repayment date without the consent of the Defendant, a joint and several surety, solely on the grounds that the joint and several surety of the household loan is merely liable for the extension of the repayment date of the principal debt. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the disposition documents and the responsibility of the joint and several surety with respect to the interpretation of the disposition documents and the confirmation obligation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal assigning this error are with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)