[1] In a case where the dividend is insufficient to extinguish all of the claims secured by the same secured party at a voluntary auction, the method of satisfaction of performance

[2] Whether the order of statutory appropriation of performance itself is subject to confession (negative)

[1] In an auction for the exercise of a security right, if the dividend falls short of all the secured claims held by the same secured party and its interest or damages for delay, it shall be appropriated in accordance with the method of statutory appropriation of performance under Articles 4777 and 479 of the Civil Code, which is the most equitable and reasonable method for uniform appropriation. Such statutory appropriation of performance shall be made in the order of interest or damages for delay and the principal. The principal shall be made in the order of the interest or damages for delay and the principal. The principal shall be made in order according to whether the due date comes and the arrival date of the due date, and the amount of the principal shall be calculated in proportion to the amount of each original obligation. However, if there is no difference in the due date or the amount of the repayment interest, it shall

[2] In determining the order of statutory appropriation of performance, matters concerning the due date or the profit from repayment, etc., which serves as the basis for determination of the order of statutory appropriation of performance, may be the subject of confession as specific facts. However, the order of statutory appropriation of performance itself is a legal effect prescribed by the application of the legal provisions, and its statement is not deemed to be a confession even if it is unfavorable to

[1] Articles 477 and 479 of the Civil Act, Articles 587 and 735 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 477 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da5504 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1818), Supreme Court Decision 96Da52649 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2676) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da7262 delivered on November 9, 1990 (Gong191, 39)

Industrial Bank of Korea (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na906 delivered on December 26, 1997

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In an auction to exercise a security right, where dividends fall short of the entire extinction of several secured claims held by the same secured party and their interest or damages for delay, the dividends must be appropriated according to the method of statutory appropriation of performance under Articles 477 and 479 of the Civil Act, which is the most equitable and reasonable method for uniform appropriation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da55504, May 10, 1996; 96Da52649, Jul. 25, 1997). Such statutory appropriation of performance is made in the order of interest or damages for delay and the original. The statutory appropriation of performance is made in the order of interest or damages for delay and the difference between the original and the original. However, if there is no difference between the due date and the interest or damages for delay, it shall be made in proportion to each original debt, and if there is no difference in the application of the statutory appropriation of performance, it shall be made in proportion to the order of each principal and the legal appropriation of performance.

2. 그런데 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 원고가 소외 삼양케미칼 주식회사(이하 소외 회사라 한다)에게 1988. 9. 29. 및 같은 해 10. 29. 두차례에 걸쳐 중소기업설비자금으로 각 금 120,000,000원을 이율 연 12%, 연체 이율 연 19%로 정하여 각 대출하면서, 1988. 9. 29.자 대출금은 1991. 3. 25.부터, 1988. 10. 29.자 대출금은 1990. 9. 25.부터 매 3개월마다 분할 상환하고, 그 이자는 매년 3. 25.부터 3개월마다 차용금 잔액에 대하여 지급하기로 약정하였는데, 피고가 위 각 대출원리금 상환채무에 관하여 그 보증한도를 금 168,000,000원으로 정하여 연대보증을 한 사실, 소외 회사가 1993. 1. 18.까지 사이에 1988. 9. 29.자 대출금의 원금은 금 43,700,000원을, 1988. 10. 29.자 대출금의 원금은 금 70,650,000원을 각 상환하고, 그 각 약정이자는 1992. 12. 25.분까지 지급한 사실, 그 후 소외 회사가 원고에게 설정하여 준 근저당권이 수원지방법원 성남지원 93타경(사건번호 1 생략)으로 실행되어 원고가 1994. 5. 25.자로 금 328,221,540원을 배당받아, 그 중 금 73,331,084원은 1988. 9. 29.자 대출금 중 잔여 원금 76,300,000원(금 120,000,000원－금 43,700,000원)의 일부에 충당한 사실, 한편 원고는 소외 회사에게 두차례의 위 각 대출금(이하 이를 이 사건 대출금이라고 한다) 외에도 1991. 12. 30. 금 50,000,000원을 이율 연 15%, 연체이율 연 21%, 원금상환방법 1994. 3. 25.부터 매 3개월마다 4회에 걸쳐 분할상환하기로 정하여 대출한 것을 비롯하여, 1992. 2. 29. 금 50,000,000원을 이율 연 15%, 연체이율 연 21%, 원금상환방법 1994. 5. 25.부터 매 3개월마다 4회에 걸쳐 분할상환하기로 정하여 대출하고, 1992. 4. 30. 여신한도거래약정에 기하여 금 150,000,000원을 거래기간 1993. 4. 30., 이율 연 10%, 연체이율 연 21%로 정하여, 1993. 1. 19. 당좌대월거래약정에 기하여 금 100,000,000원을 거래기간 같은 해 7. 18.로 정하여 각 대출한 사실, 원고는 1994. 5. 25.자로 배당받은 금 328,221,540원(이하 이 사건 배당금이라고 한다) 중 금 2,055,819원을 화재보험료에 먼저 충당한 후, 앞서 본 이 사건 대출금의 원금 일부와 아울러 1990. 12. 30.자 및 1992. 2. 29.자 각 대출금의 원금 전액, 1992. 4. 30.자 대출금의 잔여 원금 121,250,000원 중 금 69,100,000원, 1993. 1. 19.자 대출금 중 잔여 원금 83,734,637원 전액에 각 충당한 사실을 그 판결에서 채용하고 있는 증거들을 종합하여 인정하거나 원고가 자인하는 사실로 든 다음, 원고가 1994. 5. 25.자 배당금이 소외 회사의 원고에 대한 대출원리금 채무를 전부 소멸시키기에 부족함에도 이를 법정변제충당의 방법에 의하지 아니한 채 일부 대출금의 원금에만 충당한 것은 아무런 효력이 없고, 법정변제충당의 방법에 따라 이 사건 배당금을 충당하는 경우 피고가 연대보증한 이 사건 대출금의 원리금에 우선 충당됨은 원고가 자인하고 있으며, 또 소외 회사의 각 대출금 채무의 변제기, 약정이율, 약정 연체이율 등에 기초하여 민법 제477조, 제479조에 의하여 충당하는 경우 이 사건 대출금의 원리금 전액에 우선 충당됨이 명백하므로 이 사건 대출금의 원리금은 전액 소멸되었다는 이유로, 이 사건 배당금에 의한 변제충당 후에도 이 사건 대출금의 원리금 일부가 남아 있음을 전제로 그 지급을 구하는 원고의 이 사건 청구를 모두 기각하고 있다.

3. However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if the Plaintiff received dividends of this case as of May 25, 1994, as recognized by the court below, the statutory appropriation of the dividends of this case shall be first appropriated to the interest or damages for delay existing on the basis of the date of distribution, and then appropriated the remainder to the principal, but the order of appropriation to the principal shall be in accordance with the ratio of the profit of repayment such as the difference in the due date and interest rate, but if there is no difference in the principal, it shall be distributed in proportion to the amount of the principal obligation.

However, according to the records, it is probable that the non-party company's repayment of the principal and interest of each of the loans including the loans in this case, and the non-party company's repayment on February 10, 1993 (record 86 pages) loss of all of the loans (record 141, 142, 144 through 146) due to the due date and the due date comes, and all of the loans thereafter are subject to the application of the general overdue interest rate at the same rate (record 141, 142, 144 through 146). Thus, each of the loans including the loans in this case at the time when the plaintiff received the dividends in this case may not be differentiated in terms of the due date or interest rate, and the balance appropriated to the expenses or interest shall be divided in proportion to each of the principal of the loans including the loans in this case, and if appropriated, the principal of the loans in this case may remain in excess of the legal satisfaction of payment notwithstanding the dividends in this case.

Therefore, without examining whether the court below applied the same overdue interest rate as the arrival of the due date due to the non-party company's default, it is clear that the dividend in this case is preferentially appropriated for the loan in this case and its delay damages, or that the dividend in this case is appropriated for the total principal and interest of the loan in this case by considering the order of statutory appropriation of performance only based on the initial contract terms and conditions on the loan in this case and each of the loan in this case including the loan in this case. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles on appropriation of performance and confession, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)