[1] The method of interpreting the expression of intent as to the scope of secured obligation in a case where the document to establish the right to collateral security takes the form of a general transaction agreement printed in the same letter

[2] The case holding that unlike the language of the contract establishing a right to collateral security, it cannot be interpreted that the obligation is not included in the scope of the secured obligation

[1] Even though a written contract to establish a mortgage takes the form of a general transaction agreement printed in the same word, if the document is deemed a disposal document and its authenticity is recognized, the content of declaration of intent shall be interpreted in accordance with the language and text of the contract unless there are special circumstances. However, if it is deemed reasonable to interpret the intent of the parties as the intent of the contract only as a collateral obligation, unlike the language and text of the contract, in light of all the circumstances such as the process and purpose of concluding the contract to establish the mortgage, the amount of the secured obligation, the relationship between the mortgagee and the debtor and the creditor, etc., the scope of

[2] The case holding that, even though the debtor was aware that at the time of the establishment of the instant collateral security, the mortgagee did not inquire of the creditor company about whether he was liable for debt and the amount of debt with respect to the creditor company, and confirmed the meaning of the contract prior to the conclusion of the collateral security contract in favor of the lawyer's office and the certified judicial scrivener's office, etc., in addition, if the creditor company did not attend the branch director or the representative director, the motive for entering into the instant collateral security contract was a means to pay the sales price of the instant real estate, or if the mortgagee did not have a close relation to the obligor to provide the instant real estate as collateral for the debtor, or that the employee of the creditor company did not notify the mortgagee that the instant collateral security was a comprehensive collateral security, unlike the language of the above collateral security contract, it cannot be interpreted that the debtor's debt against the creditor company is not included in the scope of the secured debt.

[1] Articles 105, 357, and 360 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105, 357, and 360 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu10077 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 203) Supreme Court Decision 94Da20242 delivered on September 30, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2852), Supreme Court Decision 94Da8969 delivered on November 25, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 83 delivered on April 26, 1996) (Gong196Sang, 1710)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Co., Ltd.

Busan High Court Decision 96Na129 delivered on May 30, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the defendant company, who was an employee of the defendant company, had a duty to explain or inform the plaintiff about the existence of the debt and amount of the debt of the defendant company, as long as the plaintiff did not know whether the defendant company was liable for the debt of the above non-party 3 and the amount of the debt, was not obligated to explain or inform the plaintiff about the existence of the debt of the plaintiff and the amount of the debt of the plaintiff.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to mistake of facts or fraud due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and since the probative value of evidence is entrusted to the judgment by the judge's free conviction, it cannot be said that the court below adopted the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the employee of the defendant company, in conducting the fact-finding, and there is no reason for all arguments.

2. Even if the written contract to establish a right to collateral security takes the form of a general transaction agreement printed in the same word, it shall be deemed a disposal document. Thus, in a case where the authenticity is recognized, the content of declaration of intent shall be interpreted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract unless there are any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu107, Nov. 27, 1990; 94Da20242, Sept. 30, 1994): Provided, That if it is deemed reasonable to interpret a party’s intent as a collateral agreement only within a certain scope of obligation, unlike the terms and conditions of the contract, in light of all the circumstances, such as the formation and purpose of the contract to establish the right to collateral security, the amount of secured obligation, and the mutual relationship with the debtor and creditor, the scope of the obligation to collateral security may be limited according to the party’s intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da8969, Nov. 25, 1994>

According to the facts and records duly established by the court below, even though the plaintiff knew that the non-party 3 was engaged in steel transactions with the defendant company at the time of the establishment of the above mortgage, he did not ask the defendant company about whether he was liable for the above non-party 3's debt and the amount of debt. The defendant company confirmed the meaning of the contract prior to the conclusion of the above mortgage contract in relation to the attorney's office and a certified judicial scrivener office. In addition, the defendant company did not attend the branch office or the representative director at the time of conclusion of the above mortgage contract. Thus, the plaintiff's motive of entering into the above mortgage contract was a tool for receiving the sale price of the real estate, or the plaintiff did not have a close relation for providing the real estate as security for the above non-party 3. Further, the defendant company's employee did not notify the plaintiff that the above mortgage contract of this case was a comprehensive mortgage, unlike the terms of the above mortgage contract, it cannot be viewed that the above non-party 3's debt was not included in the scope of the secured debt. Thus, the judgment below's decision is justified.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)