In case the scope of warranty liability should be limited differently from the text of the mortgage contract printed in the same letter.

Unless there are special circumstances, a contract to establish a collateral security shall be interpreted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, as it is a disposal document. However, if the contract is a contract which is uniformly printed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the form of a general transaction clause, the scope of the secured obligation in the contract clause should be comprehensively included in the scope of the secured obligation in addition to the loan obligation granted by the establishment of the collateral security right, and all the obligations arising out of other causes that may be incurred in the existing or future in addition to the loan obligation. However, if the scope of the secured obligation is interpreted in accordance with the printed terms and conditions of the contract in light of various circumstances, such as the developments leading up to the conclusion of the contract on the collateral security, loan practices, relationship between the loan obligation and the amount of the debt in the future and the amount of the debt in the collateral security right, and whether the secured obligation is separately secured against the general loan practices of the financial institution, and it is reasonable to interpret only the loan obligation in the form of the collateral security obligation, it is reasonable to exclude the binding force of the contract.

Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Articles 2, 106, and 357 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu12152 delivered on July 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1684) Supreme Court Decision 92Da40785 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 265) Supreme Court Decision 94Da8969 delivered on November 25, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 83) 96Da27612 delivered on September 20, 196 (Gong196Ha, 3160)

The designated parties' assistance (PS General Law Firm, Attorneys Kang Hong-ju et al., Counsel for the appointed parties' assistance)

National Bank of Korea (Attorney Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Yu-style et al. and six others

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na56266 delivered on January 19, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statement submitted after the expiration of the period) are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized the non-party company's loan equivalent to US$ 507,503 from the defendant as loan funds of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of incomplete deliberation such as theory of lawsuit, and all of the repayment payments of the non-party company are decided in the attached list of the judgment below. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous and incomplete. The arguments are without merit.

As to second ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning by taking full account of the evidences, and judged that the sum of the Plaintiff's deposit money with respect to the right to collateral security (No. 29583, Jun. 13, 1985), which was completed to secure the loan of the loan of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, is insufficient to extinguish the full amount of the loan, and the remaining collateral security obligations are fully repaid and extinguished. In light of the records, this recognition and decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit or incomplete deliberation, and there is no error of law such as the omission of judgment or incomplete deliberation. The precedents pointed out in the lawsuit are governed by the amended Civil Procedure Act, and it is not applicable to this case conducted under the repealed Auction Act.

On the third ground for appeal

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the payment should be made in the order of principal and interest in accordance with the defendant's loan settlement regulations. The court below rejected the payment of the plaintiff's deposit because the revenue arising from the legal procedure of the loan settlement regulations of the defendant bank, the repayment deposit of the maximum amount of collateral security right, and the subrogated payment of the Credit Guarantee Fund would be appropriated for the corresponding credit amount in the order of the loan interest rates, but the above provision is merely a provision of the procedures for internal affairs of the defendant bank. In light of the records, there is no evidence to find that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to comply with the above provisions. Rather, according to Article 13 of the related loan lending certificate drawn up between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant bank had no objection to the payment of all expenses, principal, interest, and fees, and according to Article 12 of the loan settlement regulations of the defendant bank, if the debtor's payment of the loan is insufficient to meet the debtor's full repayment due to the expiration of the debtor's obligation, the above loan settlement regulations of the defendant bank can not be justified and justified.

On the fourth ground

The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to repay the plaintiff's deposit money in the order of the principal and interest shall not be viewed as a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or an incomplete hearing. The arguments are without merit.

On the fifth ground

According to the records, the defendant appropriated the amount calculated by adding 19% interest rate again to the overdue interest rate in the repayment of the plaintiff's repayment deposit. This is to add the overdue interest rate again to the agreed party, and the part exceeding 25% is null and void due to the violation of the Interest Limitation Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Interest Limitation Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, nor in the incomplete hearing, etc.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

Unless there exist special circumstances, a contract to establish a collateral security should be interpreted in accordance with the language and text of the contract. However, in the case of a contract which is uniformly printed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the form of a general transaction agreement, the scope of the secured obligation in the contract clause should be comprehensively included in the scope of the secured obligation in addition to the loan obligation granted by the establishment of the collateral security right, and all other causes such as the loan obligation and the establishment of the future obligation. However, it is reasonable to interpret the scope of the secured obligation in accordance with the printed terms and text of the contract, rather than in violation of the general loan practice of the financial institution, and to interpret the parties' intent as the purport of the contract only as the secured obligation in the form of the general transaction agreement, considering that the comprehensive transaction agreement was merely an example that was printed in the form of a general transaction agreement, and thus, it is reasonable to exclude the party member from the scope of the secured obligation under the above contract.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the contract to establish a collateral between the plaintiff and the defendant is a comprehensive collateral security, and thus the loan of the Asian Development Bank, the loan of the non-party union loan, the factoring loan of the non-party company, and the fact-finding loan of the non-party company cannot be cancelled due to the registration of collateral security as long as the loan of the loan of the International Bank for Bank for Bank for Bank for Bank for Bank for Bank for Bank for Bank for Bank for Bank Development remains remaining, the contract to establish a collateral security was established after the lapse of 2-3 years or a considerable period of time, and each additional loan was established, and the fact that the maximum debt amount of collateral security corresponds to each loan of the above additional loan amount, and rejected it. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable as it is in accordance with the legal principles as seen above, and there is no illegality by misapprehending the legal principles as to the wrong interpretation of the disposal document or the legal principles as to the comprehensive collateral security. It is

3. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)