(a) If there is a special agreement for the loss of profit resulting from a condition precedent, the time for delay of performance;

(b) The scope of credit guarantee accidents for which the creditor shall notify the guarantor thereof pursuant to the provisions of Article 31 (2) of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act or the credit guarantee agreement equivalent thereto;

A. In the event that a contractual party causes a certain cause, the obligor loses the benefit of time, and the obligor enters into a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time under a condition of suspension which causes the same effect as that of the due date, even if the obligee does not express any separate declaration of intent, the cause for loss of the benefit of time under the special agreement occurs, and at the same time, the obligee’s declaration of intent to lose the benefit of time takes effect upon the due date, and the obligor

B. Article 31(2) or (2) of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act provides for a notification obligation of the same content in a credit guarantee agreement that allows a guarantor to secure a claim for reimbursement due to the repayment of a guaranteed obligation in advance. Therefore, a credit guarantee accident to be notified to a guarantor by the creditor refers to the occurrence of a cause for the obligor to lose the benefit of time or not fulfilling his/her obligation to pay his/her obligation to the obligee, and barring special circumstances, it does not include cases where the same result results as the loss of the benefit of time in relation to a guaranteed obligation due to the occurrence

A. Articles 387 and 388 of the Civil Act; Article 3(2) of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2112 Decided September 20, 1988

Busan Bank Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Choi Jin-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na872 delivered on April 14, 1988

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

As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

1. The court below cited the defendant's credit guarantee liability exemption from the above real estate and judged it as follows. In other words, Article 3 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, which forms the basis for the establishment and management of the above credit guarantee contract, shall be notified without delay to the defendant when there are causes likely to affect the guarantee obligation, such as the debtor's loss of time limit or non-performance of the obligation, and subparagraph 8 of Article 8 shall be notified without delay until one month after the occurrence of the accident (2 months in case of natural bodies). It shall be deemed that the defendant would be not liable for all or part of the guaranteed obligation, and the defendant would have been notified to the defendant that the above credit guarantee company would have lost its principal for the above credit guarantee obligation of the non-party 8 months after the occurrence of the accident. According to the credit guarantee agreement of the non-party 1, the financial institution, including the plaintiff, which formed a public notice of the fact that the above credit guarantee obligation would have been extinguished by the expiration of the period of suspension of its credit guarantee obligation to the defendant.

2. If the parties to a contract have lost the benefit of time and the obligor has concluded a special contract for loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent which causes the same effect as that of the due date, even though there is no separate declaration of intent by the obligee, the cause for loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent occurs, and there is no obligee’s declaration of intent to lose the benefit of time at the same time, and the obligor is placed in the status of delay of performance from that time on unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, the court below duly confirmed the existence of a special contract for loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent under a bill transaction agreement between the Plaintiff and the U.S. Construction Co., Ltd., and the occurrence of a cause for loss of the benefit of time under such special agreement. The judgment of the court below that the above company, as a matter of course, is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent or the meaning of the agreement with regard thereto.

3. However, according to the decision of the court below, in the credit guarantee agreement of this case concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is not liable for all or part of the guaranteed obligation if the defendant escaped because it did not take any measure for preserving the obligation until one month (two months in the case of a natural body) after the occurrence of the guaranteed obligation after the plaintiff provided notification obligation of the plaintiff to the defendant, and the defendant delayed to report the accident (two months in the case of a natural body). Thus, the above notification obligation of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act or the credit guarantee agreement of this case provides the above notification obligation of the Credit Guarantee Fund for the purpose that the guarantor can secure the claim for indemnity due to the repayment of the guaranteed obligation in advance. Thus, the credit guarantee accident to be notified to the defendant is the credit guarantee accident of this case that the debtor loses the benefit due to the guaranteed obligation of the defendant or fails to perform the obligation, and it does not include any other obligation other than the guaranteed obligation of this case resulting in the loss of the benefit of the guaranteed obligation as well as the loss of the benefit of the guaranteed obligation (refer to the party member).

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the non-identical Construction Co., Ltd. constitutes a guarantee accident that has a duty to notify the fact that the principal of the over-the-counter loan is in arrears, not the guaranteed debt of this case, and accepted the defendant's grounds for exemption from liability. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the scope of the creditor's duty to notify under Article 31 (2) of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act and the credit guarantee agreement of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, this constitutes a ground for appeal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)