Whether it constitutes a guarantee accident under the terms and conditions of credit guarantee where the Credit Guarantee Fund provides a guarantee in accordance with the Credit Guarantee Act for a lending of money to another person, loss of the benefit from other debts to the bank constitutes a guarantee accident.

Even if a bank has lost the interest of the term of the loan that it lent to another person without taking the guarantee procedure of the Credit Guarantee Fund, it is reasonable to interpret that the cause arises after the expiration of the guarantee period of the guaranteed obligation under the Credit Guarantee Fund Act and the loss of the benefit of the credit guarantee obligation under the Credit Guarantee Fund Act as the credit guarantee accident provided for in the Management of Credit Guarantee Accidents, and that the term 'liability' means only the relevant obligation that the Credit Guarantee Fund has provided as the credit guarantee. Therefore, the loss of the benefit of the guarantee obligation does not constitute the above reasons.

Article 31 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Credit Guarantee Fund

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 22,103,561 won with an amount of 20,000,000 won per annum from September 17, 1986 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 22,157,721 won and 20,000 won among them at the rate of 25% per annum from the day after the day when the complaint of this case was served to the defendant.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

On December 3, 1982, the non-party 1, 25,00,00 won, interest rate of the non-party 25,00,00 won shall be 10% per annum, and on November 10, 1983, the defendant guaranteed the above debt guarantee period of the non-party 1 corporation pursuant to the Credit Guarantee Fund Act until the above repayment period is due. Since the non-party 6 corporation did not repay the above debt after the expiration of the payment period of the above loan (hereinafter the above debt guarantee period), the non-party 25,00,00 won, which was originally extended by the non-party 20,00,000 won to the non-party 20,000,000 won, which was extended by the non-party 20,000 won to the non-party 20,000,000 won, as the above debt guarantee period of the above loan was extended by the non-party 1 corporation.

With respect to the plaintiffs' assertion that the above obligation of the defendant under the above credit guarantee agreement was discharged in accordance with the credit guarantee agreement and the credit guarantee accident management regulations, which are the business guidelines of the defendant fund, and the guidelines for the examination of the performance of the guaranteed obligation, due to the above non-party bank's neglect of notification of the credit guarantee accident, and the defendant's guarantee obligation under the above credit guarantee agreement was discharged in accordance with the above credit guarantee agreement. The non-party company borrowed 25 million won from the above non-party bank as well as borrowed 25,00,000 won from the above non-party bank on August 17, 1983. The loan obligation was delayed due to the delinquency in payment of interest and loss of interest due to the defendant's duty to guarantee the above credit guarantee agreement, and if it is deemed necessary to secure the defendant's obligation under the above credit guarantee agreement within the limit of 198,000 won due to the fact that the non-party bank's obligation was not guaranteed within the limit of 1984.

Therefore, Article 8 subparag. 10 of the Credit Guarantee Contract, which constitutes a credit guarantee contract of this case, provides that the defendant Fund shall not be liable for all or part of the guaranteed liability if it fails to take measures to preserve the claim until one month (2 months in the case of natural body) after the occurrence of the guaranteed liability expires, and the defendant Fund shall prepare a business manual of No. 1-2 (Credit Guarantee Clause), No. 2 (Credit Guarantee Accident Management) and No. 3 (Credit Guarantee Accident Management) and the testimony of No. 3 (Notice) and all of its arguments. In light of the above facts, Article 8 subparag. 10 of the Credit Guarantee Contract, which constitutes a credit guarantee contract of this case, provides that the defendant Fund shall not be liable for all or part of the guaranteed liability, and the defendant Fund shall prepare a business manual of No. 1-2 (Credit Guarantee Clause No. 2), No. 1-3 (Evidence No. 3) and notify all of the above facts to financial institutions including the above non-party Bank of this fact within 80 months after the above credit Guarantee Contract No.

Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned legal principles as to the non-party 1's loss of the term of guarantee under the above-mentioned credit guarantee terms and conditions, as long as the original guarantee period for the non-party 1's guaranteed obligation is not applicable until November 10, 1983, the loss of the term of guarantee for the non-party 2's guaranteed obligation cannot be seen as a guarantee accident, and the defendant's change of the term of guarantee to May 10, 1984 to the above term of 1.25, the above term of guarantee can not be seen as a guarantee accident since the above term of guarantee can not be seen as a guarantee accident, in light of the aspect of the date of its occurrence, the above term of guarantee cannot be seen as a guarantee accident, and even if the above term of guarantee cannot be seen as an extension of the term of guarantee under the above-mentioned credit guarantee terms and conditions of the non-party 1's guaranteed obligation, it is difficult to view that the above non-party 2's loss of the term of guarantee obligation under the above-mentioned credit guarantee terms and the above term of the above.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to examine the remaining issues of the defendant's letter of exemption based on the premise that the non-party bank delayed the notification of the credit guarantee accident. Furthermore, according to the health account and the evidence No. 1-1 of the above evidence, the defendant guaranteed the above obligation within the limit of the amount of interest calculated by the rate until the payment of the above principal of the loan and the guaranteed obligation after the due date is due.

In addition to the above principal and interest, the plaintiffs argued that the non-party bank applied for the payment order to secure the above guaranteed claim and disbursed 54,160 won at the expense, and they also belong to the scope of guaranteed obligation, and thus, they also claim reimbursement of the expenses. Thus, according to the above Gap evidence No. 1-2, the defendant can be acknowledged as guaranteed by the court among the expenses paid by the non-party bank for the recovery of guaranteed obligation, but there is no evidence proving that the above expenses are the costs of lawsuit acknowledged by the court, and therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is groundless.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 1% per annum from September 23, 1984 to September 6, 1985, with 22,103,561 won [20,000 won 】 349/365] 】 (11/100) 】 22,103,561 won per annum from September 23, 1984 to 20,000 won per annum from September 17, 1986 to 20,000 won of the principal of the guaranteed claim transferred to the plaintiffs, and as the plaintiff seeks, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum under Article 35% per annum from September 6, 1985 from the date following the date on which the complaint was delivered to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for damages for delay within the scope of 9% per annum of the above provisional execution is without merit as to the remaining claims of this case.

Judges Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Judge)