Whether a guarantee contract can be terminated for reasons of change in circumstances if a director has resigned from his/her position after guaranteeing a fixed obligation while being employed as a director of a company.

It is limited to the case where the debt amount is guaranteed due to an uncertain and continuous transaction, such as comprehensive collateral guarantee or limited collateral guarantee, and even if a director of the company, while holding office as a director of the company, has guaranteed the debt amount due to an indefinite and continuous transaction, and then resigned from office, the guarantee contract cannot be terminated for reasons of change of circumstances.

Article 543 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Attorney Jeong-jin et al., Counsel for defendant

Defendant (Attorney Hong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil History Court Decision 94Na3017 delivered on August 12, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the court below's reasoning, the court below held that the defendant's above guarantee contract can be terminated on the ground that the defendant's 80,000,000 principal and interest obligation of the non-party 1 corporation at the time of the defendant's employment as a director of the non-party 1 corporation as a director of the non-party 1 corporation was guaranteed by the plaintiff's credit guarantee, and accordingly, the plaintiff's right to claim compensation against the above non-party 1 corporation was jointly and severally guaranteed by the non-party 1, the plaintiff's right to claim compensation against the above non-party 1, and then the plaintiff's right to claim compensation was paid to the non-party 1, as at the time of original adjudication. Since the defendant's employment as a director of the non-party 1 corporation guaranteed the above company's indemnity liability as at the time of the above company's employment with the non-party 1 corporation's request and guaranteed the above company's indemnity liability as at August 26, 1978, since the above guarantee contract was lawfully terminated due to the defendant's employment guarantee contract.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The 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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)