A. The legal nature of the so-called “return” and the responsibility of the guarantor, which offsets the former obligation by receiving all documents that the bank would substantially extend the due date for payment, or all documents that the bank would normally receive at the time of a new loan and provide a new loan.

(b) The case holding that the effect of guarantee for probation of an existing obligation does not extend to a new obligation on the ground that the repayment period for the original export support loan was extended by the extension of the original maturity period for the extension;

A. In a case where the bank is unable to extend the due date for the loan obligations under the ordinary circumstances, it is practically intended to extend the due date for the loan obligations. However, the so-called “return” set-off against the former obligation by receiving all ordinary documents received at the time of new loan in light of practical processing practices is merely a formal separate loan, barring special circumstances, but its legal nature is merely an extension of the due date for the existing obligation, and thus, is merely a mere extension of the existing obligation, and thus, its legal nature shall be deemed as a quasi-loan continuing to exist while maintaining the identity of the existing obligation. However, in the case of a substitution between the creditor and the guarantor, the guarantor shall be exempted from the liability for the guarantee, unlike the above cases.

B. The case holding that even if a general fund was loaned for the purpose of the extension of the original repayment period of export support loan, the above "large exchange" is a contract which conclusives the existing debt and establishes a new debt, and thus, it constitutes a novation with no identity between both obligations, and thus, the effect of guarantee of probation against the existing debt does not extend to the new debt.

Articles 493, 500, and 605 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1670 decided Feb. 11, 1986 (Gong1986,448) (Gong1989,1159) decided Oct. 30, 1990 (Gong1990,2413), Supreme Court Decision 88Meu20576 decided Jan. 15, 1991 (Gong1991,732)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu20576 Delivered on January 15, 1991

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na6124 delivered on June 4, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Where a bank is unable to extend the due date for a loan under the ordinary circumstances, it is practically intended to extend the due date for a loan, but the so-called repayment set-off against the former loan by receiving all ordinary documents received at the time of a new loan due to practical processing practices constitutes a separate loan, except in exceptional circumstances, however, the legal nature is merely an extension of the due date for the payment of the existing loan, and thus, its legal nature is still a quasi-loan continuing to exist after maintaining the identity of the basic obligation. However, in special circumstances, such as where the creditor and the guarantor agree to exempt the guarantor from the liability for the guarantee, unlike the above cases, the guarantor shall be exempted from the liability for the guarantee.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if a general fund was loaned for the purpose of extending the repayment period of the original export support loan in the case of the substitute exchange of this case, the court below is just in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the judgment of the remanded case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to quasi-loan of loan and renewal of loan, such as sub-loan of loan, interest rate, and guarantee, and the extension of the repayment period for the former export support loan is allowed. Thus, the substitute exchange of this case is a contract which conclusives the existing debt only for the original export support loan, and establishes the new debt, and thus, it constitutes a novation without identity between the two obligations. Therefore, the above judgment is just in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the judgment of the remanded case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to quasi-loan of loan and renewal of loan.

In addition, according to the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the exchange of this case was made with the right of rescission on the condition that the non-party company is not issued a new guarantee of the defendant's obligations for general loans, or that if the non-party company is not issued a guarantee of the above guarantee, the plaintiff reserved the right of rescission to cancel the exchange. There is no violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, or lack of reasoning, such as the theory of lawsuit. There

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)