Cases that are Daejeon recovered by a bank after a credit guarantee accident and that should be preferentially appropriated for the relevant guaranteed loan under the credit guarantee terms and conditions;

Daejeon following the occurrence of a credit guarantee in accordance with the credit guarantee terms and conditions between the bank and the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund may appropriate funds in order of the creditor's non-loan and the guarantee sub-loan claims. However, in the event that the recovery Daejeon is a trade finance, discount bill loan, facility loan, installment savings loan, etc., or the guaranteed loan is a trade finance, discount loan, facility loan, installment savings loan, etc., Daejeon, which is naturally to be appropriated for the loan, should naturally be appropriated for the relevant guaranteed loan, such as Daejeon, Daejeon, etc., if the guaranteed loan is an international trade finance, the Daejeon, which is naturally appropriated for the relevant guaranteed loan, should be appropriated for the relevant trade finance. Daejeon, such as Daejeon, should be appropriated for the export finance. For the domestic purchase of raw materials for export of the guaranteed company, the bank established a local letter of credit and issued the credit amount to the beneficiary and paid the credit amount to the bank by subrogation, and the company is a trade finance loan obligation to support the export, and the company acquires the funds purchased for export of the raw materials, and then disposes of it by transfer, shall be interpreted as related to Daejeon.

Articles 105 and 476 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

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

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na4237 delivered on April 15, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal (1) and (2) are also examined.

According to the court below's decision, on February 25, 1986, the defendant, up to 250,000 won, agreed to guarantee the trade financing obligations owed to the plaintiff between the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 to the above non-party 4 (the non-party 2) until February 24, 1987. The plaintiff and the non-party company entered into a contract for the issuance and trade of a local letter of credit with the limit of 250,00,000 won on March 20, 1986. The plaintiff borrowed 15,369,864 won in total as trade bill loans from the non-party 2 to the non-party 3's credit guarantee company at the request of the non-party 4 and the non-party 4's credit guarantee company's credit guarantee contract for the above non-party 74,148,618 won in total, and the plaintiff acquired the non-party 1 and the non-party 236's credit guarantee contract for the above non-party 1.

However, Article 8 (1) of the Credit Guarantee Terms and Conditions provides that Daejeon, as a matter of course, should be appropriated for the loan in question, such as World Trade, Bill Collection Daejeon, Facility Daejeon and Facility Daejeon and Facility Fund Management Fund, and installment savings payment, if the recovery Daejeon is designated for the repayment of the guaranteed loan, or if the guaranteed loan is a trade finance loan, loan for facilities, installment savings loan, etc., it shall be appropriated for the guaranteed loan. If the guaranteed loan is a trade finance, it is interpreted that Daejeon, as a matter of course, should be appropriated for the export finance of the non-party company for the domestic purchase of raw materials for export of the non-party company. As in this case, in order to purchase the raw materials for export of the non-party company, the creditor bank opened a local letter of credit and issued the letter of credit, and paid for the non-party company on behalf of the beneficiary bank, the above subrogated payment obligation for export support is a trade loan for the purpose of support, and the non-party company, which purchased the loan by the non-party company, as a matter of course, constitutes an export credit guarantee agreement related to Daejeon.

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat unclear in the expression, it can be seen that Article 8 of the above Credit Guarantee Clause is interpreted as above and the proceeds from the sale of this case is decided as Daejeon, which will be preferentially appropriated for the trade finance of this case. Therefore, the judgment below does not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of legal acts, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by

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 Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)