(a) Criteria for limiting liability for a guarantee, where the guarantee period or the limit of guarantee is not specified in the terms and conditions of the renewal guarantee contract;

(b) Where directors of the company have concluded a joint and several guarantee contract with the bank for the company, the scope of joint and several sureties

A. According to the language and text of a contract of collateral guarantee, even if the guarantee of all obligations borne by the company without setting the guarantee period or guarantee limit, if it can be acknowledged that the intent of the party was limited to a guarantee of a transaction within a certain range, unlike the contractual terms, in light of the motive and purpose of the guarantee, the content of the guarantee obligation, the practice of transaction, etc., the scope of the guarantee liability should be limited.

B. Since a director of a company was in the position of its director, it became a joint and several sureties for the company's obligations arising from continuous transactions under the Bank's loan regulations, and if the bank newly received a joint and several sureties by the director, etc. of the company at each time at the time of transaction, it shall be deemed that the joint and several sureties contract between the bank and the director is for the purpose of merely taking responsibility

Articles 428 and 429 of the Civil Act

Choung Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Sung-sung

Defendant Hong-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na701 delivered on April 16, 1982

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

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that a bill trading agreement was concluded between the Co-Defendant 1 of the court below and the plaintiff bank on December 17, 1974 and September 13, 1976, and that there was an agreement between the parties to the current account on December 17, 1974 and December 26 of the same year. In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the remaining Co-Defendant excluding the above company at the court below established several times between December 27, 1974 and December 26, 1976 that the above Co-Defendant was liable for the above company's debt based on the bill trading agreement and the guarantee contract between the plaintiff Co-Defendant 2 of the court below and the plaintiff bank on all the obligations arising from the current account and the amount of debt incurred by the current account and the amount of debt guaranteed by the defendant on June 30, 1977; the above company and the above company's joint and the above company 164th 197.7.168

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, evidence Nos. 1 and 25 and evidence Nos. 1 and 25, it is recognized that the above company concluded a bill transaction agreement between the plaintiff bank and the bill transaction agreement of Dec. 17, 1974 and the bill transaction agreement of Sep. 13, 1976, and each contract between the current account of the current account of the current account of December 17, 1974, without clarifying the guarantee period or guarantee limit under the agreement, the defendant is jointly and severally liable as a guarantor for all obligations to be borne by the above company under the agreement.

However, as in the contract for continuing guarantee of this case, even if the above company guarantees all the obligations to be borne by the above company without setting the period or guarantee limit under the terms of the contract, if it can be recognized that the intent of the parties was limited to guarantee of certain scope of transaction unlike the contract terms, the scope of guarantee liability should be limited. The defendant's joint and several surety's loan agreement of the above company No. 34-1 (written application for loan), Gap evidence No. 34-5 (written resolution of board of directors), Eul evidence No. 34-7 (Surety), Eul's registry No. 6, Eul's certificate No. 7 (Loan No. 7), Non-party's testimony and result of verification of loan documents of the court below, etc. shall be limited to the above company's joint and several surety's loan of the above company No. 197, Dec. 23, 1971, and most of the defendant's joint and several surety's joint and several surety's loan of the above company No. 197.

As above, since the defendant was in the position of director of the above company, he was guaranteed joint and several sureties for the company's obligations arising from continuous transactions under the loan regulations of the plaintiff bank. If the plaintiff bank newly received joint and several sureties by the director, etc. of the company at each time of transaction, it shall be deemed that the defendant was responsible only for the company's obligations arising during the term of office as director.

Therefore, the court below's decision, which held that the defendant's joint and several liability obligation under the joint and several liability contract is limited to the obligation arising from the transaction relationship after the retirement of the director of the company, even though the court below decided that the defendant's joint and several liability obligation under the joint and several liability contract is limited to the obligation arising from the transaction relationship after retirement, including the transaction relationship dealt with by ascertaining the substance of the transaction relationship among the claim claim claim in this case, which the plaintiff bank seeks, including the transaction relation in the form of a bill draft, etc., by ascertaining the substance of the transaction relationship, and thereby, constitutes an illegal act affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interpretation of the contract for collateral guarantee contract, or by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, which constitutes grounds

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)