The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In making a guarantee, if the bank agreed that the beneficiary will immediately pay the guarantee money requested by the beneficiary without being bound by a contract based on which the guarantee is based or any condition of the provision of the performance, in the event that the bank provides a written demand consistent with the terms and conditions of the payment of the deposit and the document explicitly required by the guarantee, it is not an ordinary guarantee in relation to the principal obligation, but an ordinary guarantee in relation to the principal obligation, which is independent of the underlying obligation, the relationship between the client who is the principal obligor and the beneficiary who is the creditor, and at the request of the beneficiary, only if there is no defense against the beneficiary on the ground of the underlying relationship, the bank's unconditional payment obligation occurs.

The guarantor of such independent bank guarantee is obliged to pay the amount specified in the letter of guarantee regardless of whether the client is liable for default in relation to the beneficiary, and in this respect, the independent bank guarantee is distinct from the cause relationship between the beneficiary and the client.

However, an independent bank guarantee does not completely exclude the application of the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights. Thus, if it is objectively apparent that the beneficiary makes a request to the guarantor by abusing the abstract and unmanned features of the bank guarantee even though the beneficiary does not have any right to the applicant, it is not permissible as it constitutes an abuse of rights. In such a case, the guarantor may also refuse the payment of the deposit upon the beneficiary's request. However, Supreme Court Decision 93Da43873 delivered on December 9, 1994.