A. Whether a joint and several surety contract can be terminated on the ground of change of circumstances where a person who has become a joint and several surety for the company's obligations arising from continuous transactions between the company and the bank inevitably because he/she was in a position of director and has left the position of director (affirmative)

(b) Where a guarantor in the contract of collateral guarantee has retired from an officer of a company who is the debtor, whether the guarantor must also express his/her intent to terminate the contract of joint and several sureties with the bank in writing where there is a provision that the guarantor should inform the bank in writing (negative)

A. If a person who has become a joint guarantor for the company's obligations arising from continuous transactions between the company and the bank inevitable at the company's request due to the company's position as a director, leaves the company's position and later leaves the company's position, it constitutes a case where the situation at the time of the establishment of the above joint and several sureties contract significantly changes, and thus, the above contract

B. The purport of the guarantor’s resignation from an officer of the company that is the debtor is stipulated in the contract for collateral guarantee is not to be construed that the guarantor’s expression of intent to terminate the joint and several guarantee contract with the bank must be written, on the sole basis of the fact that the guarantor retires from the debtor

a.B.Article 428 and Article 543 of the Civil Code. Article 105 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 77Da2298 decided Mar. 28, 1978 (Gong1978, 10756) (Gong1986, 1384 decided Feb. 27, 1990)

Gyeong-nam Bank, Inc., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 91Na2168 delivered on December 5, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on macroficial evidence, notified the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, who is an employee of the International Department of Business, of the fact that the defendant would retire from the office of the above company on the 30th of the same month with the approval of the non-party 1, the representative director of the above company, and notified the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who is an employee of the International Department of Business, of the fact that the defendant would retire from the office of the above company on the 31st of the same month and requested the preference. Upon examining the evidence relations which the court below prepared by the records, the court below's above fact-finding is justified, and there is no violation of law by mistake of facts due to the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of litigation.

According to the above facts, the defendant notified the person in charge of the plaintiff bank of the resignation of director of the above non-party company and requested the defendant to cancel the contract of this case of joint and several several sureties which was concluded as a director of the above company. Since the defendant was in the position of director of the above company, the defendant was a joint and several sureties for the company's obligations arising from continuous transactions between the above company and the plaintiff bank, and later retired from the above company and left the position of director, so the contract of this case of this case of joint and several sureties can be terminated on the ground of changes in circumstances, since the situation at the time of the establishment of the contract of this case of joint and several sureties has been significantly changed. The judgment of the court below

Article 2(2) of the instant Guarantee Contract (Evidence No. 4-6 of the Evidence No. 4) cited by the theory of the lawsuit provides that the guarantor shall notify the Plaintiff of the fact in writing when he/she retires from the officer of the debtor. However, it is not interpreted that the Defendant’s expression of intent to terminate the instant joint and several guarantee contract between the Plaintiff bank and the Plaintiff bank should be based on the written document. Thus, the argument that the declaration of intention to terminate the instant contract has no effect cannot be accepted.

In addition, as in the theory of lawsuit, Article 2 (1) of the Guarantee Contract of this case provides that the period in which the guarantor holds office as an officer of the debtor shall be the guarantee period, and Paragraph (3) provides that "the period in which the guarantor holds office as an officer" in Paragraph (1) refers to the period 45 days after the date on which the notice of retirement under Paragraph (2) from the date of guarantee agreement reaches the Plaintiff bank. Thus, even though the court below erred in the judgment that the defendant retired from the office of the above company as a director of the above company was terminated as of September 30, 198, the court below held that the above company's loan to the above company was due to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, and it is apparent that it was after March 20, 199 that it was 45 days after the date on which the defendant resigns from the office of director of the above company. Thus, all of the arguments are without merit.

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)