(a) If a part of a loan claim secured by the collateral security has been made in excess of the maximum amount, this does not first cover the repayment within the maximum amount, but the collateral security remains effective until the full payment of the loan claim has been made.

B. The issue of the scope of the amount of claims can only be discussed in relation to the next secured party or the third secured party.

(a) If a partial payment has been made when a claim secured by the collateral security exceeds the maximum amount, this does not first apply to the repayment within the maximum amount, but the effect of the collateral security extends to the remaining debt until the full repayment of the claim is made.

B. The issue of the scope of the amount of claims can only be discussed in relation to the next-order security holder or the third-party purchaser.

Article 360 of the Civil Act, Article 479 of the Civil Act

2. The Bank for the Corporation

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na1697, 1698 decided February 23, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter the Defendant’s abbreviation)’s ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

If some of the claims for the purchase price exceeds the maximum amount of the purchase price claims, the effect of the collateral security still remains effective until the full payment of the purchase price claims is made, not within the maximum amount, but within the maximum amount. The issue of the scope of the claims secured by the settlement term of accounts or the settlement of collateral security claims can be discussed in relation to the next secured party or the third purchaser. In this case, as in this case, the facts that the Defendants were jointly and severally and severally liable as joint and severally liable for the obligations of the first instance Co., Ltd. of the first instance Co., Ltd. of the Defendant Co., Ltd. of the Defendant Co., Ltd. of the Defendant Co., Ltd. of the Defendant Co., Ltd. of the Defendant Co., Ltd. of the Defendant Co., Ltd. of the Defendant Co., Ltd. of the Defendant Co., Ltd. of the Defendant Co., Ltd. of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. of the Plaintiff Co. of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. of the Plaintiff, as of August 4, 1970.

We examine the second ground for appeal.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below decided on November 21, 1966 as follows: (a) interest rate of five million won on February 18, 1967 shall be 60% per annum; (b) the Defendants entered into a collateral security contract No. 1 with a maximum amount of eight million won on the real estate stated in the attached Table 1 of the court below, which is owned by the Defendants, at the same time as a joint guarantor; and (c) entered into a monthly agreement with the Plaintiff on January 25, 1967 within a maximum of one million won per annum with a maximum of 1.6 million won per annum with the Defendants who agreed to establish a collateral security contract with a maximum of 1.6 million won per annum for the above real estate; and (d) there was no special agreement between the Plaintiff and the above food companies to establish a collateral security contract with a maximum of 1.6 million won per annum and no special agreement to establish a collateral security interest rate for delay within the scope of the Defendants' interest rate per annum and no more than 6.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

According to the bill transaction agreement (Evidence No. 1) adopted by the court below as evidence, according to the contents of each collateral security agreement (Evidence No. 25) (Evidence No. 1), it is clear that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) has a joint and several surety for the loan of this case and the monthly balance of the current account of Non-Party Lone Star Food Corporation like the same Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 2, and thus, the argument is groundless.

The ground of appeal No. 4 is examined.

The Plaintiff filed the instant principal lawsuit and continued to seize the land owned by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) among the real estate subject to the instant right to collateral security, and the intent of the parties to the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed to have agreed not to be the secured claim of collateral security in respect of the claim exceeding the maximum amount of the claim. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is necessary for the Plaintiff to explain or examine the necessity of the said provisional seizure. Therefore, there is no error of law in rejecting the Defendants’ counterclaim.

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

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)