The case limiting the scope of guarantee liability on the ground that the agreement provides that, although the principal debtor's all obligations are guaranteed, in light of all the circumstances such as the course and purpose of guarantee, details of secured liabilities, transaction practices, etc., the intention of the parties was limited to only a transaction within a certain scope of guarantee.

The case limiting the scope of liability for guarantee on the ground that the agreement provides that, although the principal debtor's all obligations are guaranteed, in light of all the circumstances, such as the course and purpose of the guarantee, details of the secured obligation, transaction practices, etc., the intention of the parties was limited to the guarantee only for a transaction within a certain scope.

Articles 105, 428, and 429 of the Civil Act

Benefits Livestock Industry Cooperatives

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Decision 92Na1189 delivered on November 12, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on November 30, 1983, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the defendants did not have a guarantee liability for the portion exceeding KRW 3,00,000,00, which is the guarantee limit amount at the time when a joint and several surety was established, where the plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party 1, who is a member of the plaintiff, for lending (out-of-the-counter and sales guidance) and sold livestock feed to the same person on credit, and the amount of credit loan amount is set at KRW 3,00,000,000, and even if the above limit is exceeded the above limit, the defendants agreed to comply with the above contract. The defendants guaranteed the above non-party 1's loan obligation to the above non-party 1 on the same day. However, as of October 1, 1990, the above loan principal of the above non-party 1 was 7,471,930.

However, in a guarantee contract for the loan transaction of this case, if it is deemed that the guarantee is provided for all transactions to be borne by the principal debtor due to continuous transactions without stipulating the period under the terms and conditions of the transaction agreement, the guarantor shall be held liable for the guarantee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, barring special circumstances, in light of the fact that the agreement is a disposal document. However, if it is deemed reasonable to interpret that the intent of the parties was limited to a guarantee for a certain range of transactions different from the terms and conditions of the contract, the scope of the guarantee liability should be limited according to the intent of the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da12776, Jul. 23, 1991; 89Meu26915, Jun. 26, 1990; 87Meu689, Dec. 8, 1987; 2000Da38797, Apr. 28, 1987).

However, even according to the terms of the above agreement itself, the title is a loan agreement (out of the purchase price and the sales guidance), and the following provisions are stipulated as to the loan limit transaction under the title, and Article 2(1) provides that the amount which the principal debtor is entitled to be borrowed from the plaintiff shall be KRW 3,00,000 according to the above limit transaction agreement, and it is clear that the above transaction is premised on the premise that the above transaction is made only within the limit of KRW 3,00,000,000, even if considering the face of the letter of the above agreement.

In addition, according to Article 2(2) of the above agreement, when exceeding the limit under Article 2(1) of the above agreement, it is revealed that the above agreement is applied to the excess amount and the above excess amount is promptly repaid. In addition, if it is presumed that it is stated to the purport that the excess amount is promptly repaid, it shall be deemed that it is only temporary and exceptional transactions even if it is possible to make a transaction exceeding the limit.

As can be seen, if the above limit transaction is based on the premise that it can be performed only within the limit of the limit, but in exceptional cases, the Defendants should interpret that the above limit transaction is ordinarily conducted only within the limit of the limit, and that the Defendants shall be deemed to have guaranteed the intent to bear liability for guarantee only within the limit of the limit.

In light of the above, the court below should have deliberated and judged the limit transactions in this case and the scope of guarantee by the defendants, but without doing so, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of guarantee liability, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.