Where a joint and several sureties has guaranteed the real guarantee, the scope of the guaranteed debt;

Where a third party has jointly and severally guaranteed a payment obligation for future goods arising from a continuous commercial transaction based on a commercial transaction agreement between the creditor and the debtor, and where the third party has completed the registration of creation of a new mortgage on his/her own real estate in order to secure such an unspecified debt, the purport of the joint and several guarantee agreement is not limited to the guarantee limit, unless there are special circumstances, unless otherwise specified by the special agreement, and if the guarantor bears a physical security by setting the limit on the guarantee limit at the same time or thereafter, the guarantee limit of the guarantor shall be set within the scope of the maximum debt amount in the registration of creation of a new mortgage established later.

Articles 357, 428, and 429 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 3158, Nov. 2, 1982) (Law No. 751, Nov. 2, 1988; Law No. 713, Nov. 13, 200)

juk Co., Ltd.

Defendant 1 and one other

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 24,021,671 won with 25% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

원고회사는 치약, 비누, 샴푸 및 각종 세제등을 제조 판매하는 회사로서 1981. 3.부터 일급상회라는 상호로 각종 생활필수품의 판매대리점을 경영하는 소외인에게 원고회사제품인 치약, 하이타이, 퐁퐁 등 물품을 계속적으로 공급함에 있어, 피고 1이 그해 3. 피고 2가 그해 10. 소외인의 위 물품대금채무에 대해 각 연대보증을 한 사실에 대하여는 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

At the time of the Defendants’ joint and several sureties, the scope of guarantee was set by the Nonparty as the current or future obligation against the Plaintiff due to the said goods transaction relationship, and the Plaintiff Company supplied the said goods to the Nonparty from March 1, 1981 to May 31, 1984, and thus, the unpaid amount was KRW 24,021,671, and the Defendants asserted that the Defendants are liable to pay the said amount as joint and several sureties. As to the Defendants asserted that they are liable to pay the said amount as joint and several sureties, the Defendants set the guarantee limit at KRW 9,90,000, and KRW 15,000,000 as the Defendants paid each of the above amounts.

1. The defendant 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-6's non-party 9's non-party 1'

In a case where a false third party has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation for the prices of goods that arise in the future due to a continuous business relationship between the creditor and the debtor based on the commercial transaction agreement and completed the establishment registration of a mortgage on real estate owned by the third party in order to secure the unspecified debt, the purport of the joint and several guarantee agreement, barring special circumstances, is not limited to the guarantee limit, unless there are special circumstances, and if the guarantor bears the physical or personal security at the same time or thereafter, it is reasonable to say that the guarantee limit of the guarantor is limited to the extent set later.

The reason is that, in the so-called comprehensive collateral guarantee without an explicit guarantee limit, the guarantee period is not specified, and even if there is no continuous provision of goods, the guarantor's liability is unlimited if the contract is explicitly renewed, and it results in harsh results to the guarantor. In addition, if a joint and several guarantee contract is concluded without the guarantee limit and the guarantee amount is imposed with the same limit as the establishment of a collateral with the maximum debt amount specified in order to secure the same obligation, it is reasonable to interpret that the parties' ordinary intent is clear in the collateral established subsequent to the guarantee limit.

Therefore, the limit of guarantee by the Defendants in this case is reasonable to set the scope of the maximum debt amount in each case’s registration of creation of mortgage as above, unless there are other circumstances of the special group.

However, according to the witness's testimony, the reason why the plaintiff company received the joint and several surety and the water guarantee in duplicate from the defendants in order to secure the goods payment obligation as above was the purpose of the joint and several surety to recover the claim by the joint and several surety when the amount of the above payment obligation exceeds the maximum debt amount in the establishment registration of a mortgage. However, the aforementioned testimony content first follows the witness's opinion that if the purchase price of the goods exceeds the maximum debt amount after the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed, if the joint and several surety contract without the fixed maximum debt amount is concluded in order to secure the same obligation after the conclusion of a joint and several surety contract without the fixed guarantee limit, it would be reliable, first, if the registration of a mortgage is made within the scope of the maximum debt amount in the establishment registration at the time of the establishment registration of a mortgage, but thereafter, if the guarantee limit was limited to the maximum debt amount in the future at the time of the establishment registration of a mortgage, the guarantee limit was limited within the scope of the maximum debt amount in the establishment registration of a mortgage at the time of such joint and several contracts.

Therefore, the scope of Defendant 1’s joint and several liability is limited to KRW 9,900,00,000, which is the maximum debt amount under the registration of creation of a new mortgage, and the scope of Defendant 2’s joint and several liability also is limited to KRW 15,00,00,00, which is the maximum debt amount under the registration of creation of a new mortgage, and as seen earlier, the scope of the above joint and several liability is also limited to KRW 15,00,00,000, which is the maximum debt amount under the registration of creation of a new mortgage. As such, the Defendants paid the guaranteed debt amount to each company of the Plaintiff to the extent of the guaranteed debt, and thus, the obligation for the purchase of goods, which is the principal debt, is extinguished

Judges Kang Nung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)