[1] Whether a final and conclusive joint and several surety bears the guaranteed obligation even in cases where the due date for the guaranteed obligation is extended without his/her consent (affirmative)

[2] Whether the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund has a duty to notify the guarantor of the obligation for indemnity of the principal debtor of the obligation for indemnity or of the subrogated repayment by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (negative), and whether the guarantor can be exempted from the liability equivalent to the increased interest for delay due to the absence of such notification (negative)

[3] In a case where an employee who is not authorized to make a decision on a loan or a reduction of or exemption from liability at a financial institution makes a false letter of approval to the person authorized to make the decision, whether a financial institution may cancel the loan or reduction of liability on the ground of fraud (affirmative)

[1] A joint and several surety guaranteed for a fixed debt of which the debt is specified, regardless of whether the performance period for the guaranteed debt has been extended without his/her consent, shall bear the joint and several surety obligation.

[2] Since the Credit Guarantee Fund cannot be deemed to have a legal obligation to notify the principal debtor of the amount of indemnity or the fact that the Credit Guarantee Fund has subrogated to the person who guaranteed the liability for the amount of indemnity under a credit guarantee agreement, even if there has been an increase in the amount of interest for arrears that would not have been incurred if he paid the amount of indemnity immediately due to the absence of such notification, the guarantor cannot be exempted from an obligation equivalent to the interest for arrears

[3] If an employee who did not have the power to make a decision on a loan, debt reduction, etc. in a financial institution had an officer, etc. with the authority to make the decision obtain a false letter of approval and make a loan, debt reduction, etc., the financial institution shall be deemed to have cancelled the legal act such as the loan, debt reduction, etc. pursuant to Article 110(1)

[1] Article 428(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2, 428(1), and 429(1) of the Civil Act / [3] Article 110(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da4882 delivered on October 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3748), Supreme Court Decision 95Da49141 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1066), Supreme Court Decision 95Da51533 delivered on March 8, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1217), Supreme Court Decision 97Da2726 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1589)

Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (Law Firm Peman, Attorneys Noh Jeong-kon, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant (Attorney Park Ho-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 2001Na11601 delivered on February 7, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts acknowledged by the court below

The court below concluded a credit guarantee contract with the plaintiff on April 12, 1993 to secure the repayment of principal and interest of 30 million won when the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1 corporation") borrowed 30,000 won from Dongnam bank (hereinafter referred to as "Dongnam bank"), and concluded a credit guarantee contract with the plaintiff on April 12, 1994 by adding damages for delay in accordance with the interest rate determined by the plaintiff and expenses incurred in exercising the plaintiff's rights and interest of the non-party 1 corporation to the non-party 2, the defendant, the representative of the non-party 1 corporation, 5,00 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 4,000,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000,000 won, 194.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. As to the assertion of violation of the good faith principle

A joint and several sureties who guaranteed a certain amount of obligation is liable for a joint and several sureties, regardless of whether the period of performance for the guaranteed obligation has been extended without his/her consent (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da2726, Apr. 25, 1997, etc.). Since it cannot be deemed that the Credit Guarantee Fund has a legal obligation to notify the person who guaranteed the guaranteed obligation of the indemnity under a credit guarantee contract of the fact that the principal obligor of the indemnity amount has been repaid by subrogation of the Credit Guarantee Fund or the fact that the repayment has been made by the Credit Guarantee Fund has been made by proxy, even if there has been no notification, the guarantor cannot be exempted from a liability equivalent to the interest in arrears.

In light of the records, although the credit guarantee of this case is not only guaranteed by the non-party 1 company's obligation for loans from the Dongnam bank, but also it is recognized that even if the period during which the principal obligation guaranteed by the plaintiff is due to the extension of the guarantee period after the original guarantee period, and the period of the credit guarantee is extended, the principal debtor and the joint guarantor shall assume all responsibility under the contract (Article 25 (2) of the Credit Guarantee Agreement). Thus, even if the plaintiff did not notify the defendant while changing the guarantee period and the guarantee amount under the credit guarantee contract of this case, or the plaintiff did not notify the defendant of the change of the guarantee period and the guarantee amount or the fact that the plaintiff did not notify the non-party 1 company's non-party 1's non-party 1's default or subrogated repayment, it is reasonable to determine that the defendant cannot be exempted from the obligation equivalent to the joint guarantee obligation

B. As to the judgment on the reduction of and exemption from obligations and the defense of the installment repayment agreement

According to the records, the defendant requested the reduction of and exemption from liability on March 7, 200, and obtained approval for debt reduction of 12,800,000 won from the plaintiff to repay 12,80,000 won according to the share of the defendant who is a joint and several surety. On March 28, 2000, 50,000 won out of the above 12,80,000 won between the plaintiff and the plaintiff as of March 28, 2000 and the remaining 12,30,000 won each month from April 20 to June 20123 months, and the fact that the defendant entered into an agreement for debt reduction and exemption and installment repayment of 10,000 won each month (hereinafter referred to as "agreement for debt reduction and exemption, etc. in this case") by the closing date of argument in the court below that all of the debt reduction and exemption have become due and payable in accordance with the agreement, etc.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff's debt collection team employee is in charge of debt collection, such as the debtor's property investigation, interview and demand, and the plaintiff's duty of reporting the result of interview and property investigation with the person related to the debt who is basic material to determine whether to approve it, and the defendant was aware that the defendant was employed by the non-party 2 corporation after the non-party 1 retired from the non-party 1, and was well aware that the head of the technical research institute and director were employed by the non-party 6, 200, notified the defendant about the debt reduction and exemption system and induced the defendant to make a request for debt reduction and exemption. At the time, the defendant was aware that the non-party 3 would not be able to obtain debt reduction and exemption unless the defendant's occupation is stated as the daily worker from the non-party 3 as the defendant's daily worker. The defendant signed the written request for debt reduction and exemption without mentioning his occupation in the written request for debt reduction and exemption (Evidence No. 7) and delivered it to the non-party 3 with the above written request for debt reduction and exemption agreement.

However, in a financial institution, if an employee who does not have the authority to make a decision on a loan, reduction of or exemption from debt, etc. makes a false letter of approval to the officer, etc. with the authority to make the decision, the financial institution shall be deemed to be able to revoke a legal act such as loan, reduction of debt, etc. pursuant to Article 110(1) of the Civil Act. The above recognition fact is reasonable to deem that the act of entering the defendant's occupation as a daily worker is a deception against the plaintiff under the public offering or mutual contact of the defendant and the above non-party 3. Thus, the agreement on the reduction or exemption of debt, etc. of this case was lawfully revoked on March 2, 2001, which is the date of the seventh hearing of the court of first instance, the record that the plaintiff notified the cancellation of the above agreement on the ground of fraud.

Although the judgment of the court below on this part is somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning, the court below determined that the defendant cannot assert the validity of the agreement on debt reduction and exemption, etc. of this case to the plaintiff, and rejected the defendant's defense of the agreement, such as debt reduction and exemption, etc. of this case, is justified in its conclusion, and therefore the above mistake of the court below did not affect the conclusion of this case. Therefore, this part of the ground of appeal is

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)