A. Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act where an obligor in excess of his/her obligation provides the sole property as security for a specific obligee (affirmative)

(b) Where the contract period is automatically extended in an agency contract, the guarantee period of the joint guarantor;

(a) An act of providing real estate, the sole property of which is one of the creditors, to any one of the creditors, which has already been discharged from debt excess, as a claim security is a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The term of validity of the agency contract between Gap and Eul shall be one year from the date of conclusion of the contract, but the above term of contract shall be automatically extended unless the contract renewal notice is given, and Byung becomes a joint and several surety with respect to Eul's goods payment obligation during this period, Byung shall be deemed to have consented or implied consent with respect to the automatic extension of the above term of contract, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, Byung's joint and several liability cannot be deemed to have expired one-year period.

A. Article 406 of the Civil Act: Article 428(2) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu83 Decided September 23, 1986

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant Hongk Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na6612 delivered on July 6, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Unless there are special circumstances, the act of an obligor providing real estate, the only property of which is the debtor's own property, to any one of the creditors, as a credit security shall constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu83, Sept. 23, 1986). In the same purport, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of fraudulent act or incomplete deliberation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The precedents pointed out by the theory of lawsuit cannot be appropriate in this case from the different cases.

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 1, a primary debtor, transferred the above agency to the non-party 3 for the subsequent transaction since August of the same year after the conclusion of the agency contract of this case with the plaintiff company around April of 1983, and the non-party 2, a joint guarantor therefor, is not liable. The non-party 1, a primary debtor, is not only within the internal relationship with the above non-party 3, a joint manager, but also within the external relationship with the plaintiff company, the non-party 1 cannot be deemed to be exempted from the liability for the subsequent goods payment by withdrawing from the above agency's management relationship and notifying the plaintiff company of this fact. Thus, in light of the records, the court below's examination of the process of cooking the evidence in the above decision is just, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory

On the third ground for appeal

As determined by the court below, the validity term of the original agency contract between the plaintiff company and the non-party 1 shall be one year from the date of conclusion of the contract, but the above contract term shall be automatically extended unless the contract renewal notice is given, and the non-party 2 becomes a joint guarantor for the above non-party 1's goods payment obligation during this period, the above non-party 2 shall be deemed to have consented or implied consent to the automatic extension of the contract term unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the non-party 2's joint and several liability obligation has terminated one year after the expiration of the guarantee term, and there is no error of law such as

The Supreme Court's ruling pointing out the theory is different from that of this case, so it cannot be appropriate for this case.

On the fourth ground

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary as well as the evidence that the court below did not believe. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the party against whom the appeal is filed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)