콴코유동화전문 유한회사(소송대리인 변호사 유중원)

Park Sang-hoon

April 28, 2004

Seoul District Court Decision 2002Gahap1339 delivered on October 17, 2003

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Appointed Party) was revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant (Appointed Party) against the Park Sang-dong is dismissed.

2. The appeal filed against the Appointee Co., Ltd. shall be dismissed;

3. The Plaintiff and the Defendant (Appointeds)’s total costs of litigation incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Appointeds) are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the costs of appeal arising from the Defendant’s appeal against the Selectionyang Co., Ltd. are assessed against the Appointeds.

1. Purport of claim

Pursuant to the Selectionyang Co., Ltd., the Selectionyang Co., Ltd. shall pay the amount of KRW 650,261,720 and KRW 375,643,07 among them at the rate of 19% per annum from September 16, 2000 to the date of full payment, and the defendant (appointed parties; hereinafter the defendant) shall jointly and severally pay KRW 397,150,000 out of the above amount (the plaintiff shall be the first claim for the redemption price in the case of Sungsan Yangyangyang Co., Ltd.) (the plaintiff shall be the second preliminary claim for the repayment of the above amount as the second preliminary claim for the return of the agreed amount or the return of unjust enrichment, and the defendant Park Jong-dong shall be the surety's surety's guarantee obligation for the obligation of Sung Yang Yangyang Yangyang Co., Ltd.).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Park Jong-sung and the Selection-sung corporation shall be dismissed in entirety.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleading with respect to Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 6, 8, 15, 16, 17, 21, and 22, Gap evidence 23-1 through 7, Gap evidence 27-1 to 27, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 9-1, Eul evidence 9-2, and testimony of the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial.

(a) Issuance of a credit;

The Export and Import Corporation of the People's Republic of China, a Chinese company, (hereinafter the "Sandandin Corporation") imported the wings, raw materials, and subsidiary materials necessary for the manufacture of clothing from the non-party corporation, Inc. (hereinafter the "Chandinsan"), requesting a bank located in the People's Republic of China to issue a letter of credit at the dong branch of the Chinese bank located in the People's Republic of China for the payment of the price. On January 2, 1997, the mountaindong branch of the above Chinese bank issued a letter of credit (hereinafter the letter of credit of this case) with the notice bank Seoul branch of the Chinese bank and the beneficiary as effective as follows:

(1) Credit number: 509602000896, (2) Items: 135,900, 900, 91,800, 300, US dollars 382,02.86 (hereinafter referred to as US dollars is omitted), 382,02.86 (hereinafter referred to as "US dollars 382,02.86), 4: Korean port, 5: China's port, 6. 31 January 31, 1997, 7. 16 January 16, 1997.

(b) the acquisition and export of the credit of the Selectionyang Co., Ltd.

On January 197, 1997, the Selectionyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Defendant Co., Ltd.) agreed to directly supply the franchisiums and subsidiary materials that were to be exported to the Busan Eastdong Co., Ltd. according to the credit of this case between the firstman of the early 1997 and the firstman of the early 199, and the Defendant Co., Ltd. transferred the credit of this case from the 10th day of the same month to enter into a maritime transport contract with the non-party Dongdong Shipping Co., Ltd., and then exported the above franchis and subsidiary materials to the Busandong Co., Ltd. after receiving the bill of lading.

(c) Purchase of export bills, etc. by Gwangju Bank;

(1) Meanwhile, on December 23, 1996, between the Defendant Company and Gwangju Bank (hereinafter the Gwangju Bank), the Gwangju Bank provided trade financing to the Defendant Company by means of negotiation of export bills and shipping documents in accordance with the L/C method. However, where the Gwangju Bank purchased export bills from the Defendant Company and did not confirm payment, acceptance, and obligation by the obligor of the payment of the export bills after the purchase of the bills of exchange from the Defendant Company, or refused to confirm the amount of the export bills, the Defendant Company entered into an export transaction agreement (hereinafter the export transaction agreement of this case) with the obligation to repay the face value of the relevant bills of exchange.

1. The defendant company shall submit a letter of confirmation as determined by the bank, even if any defect is discovered at the time of purchasing the export bill or shipping documents, or if there is a defect notification from the exchange bank after purchase (Article 3(1)).

(2) Where an export bill of exchange is purchased by the Gwangju Bank, and the payment by the obligor is not made at the maturity, or the export bill or shipping documents are rejected on the ground of a defect which does not coincide with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit (whether confirmed by Article 3(1) above), the Defendant Company shall, as a matter of course, bear the obligation to repurchase the export bill even without notice, demand, etc. by the Gwangju Bank (Article

(2) According to the foreign exchange commission regulations of the Gwangju Bank, which applies to the purchase of export bills, where the defendant company bears repurchase obligations as above, the defendant company pays the principal at the exchange rate applied with the rate of customer telegraph redemption on the collection date, and pays the unpaid interest calculated by the rate of foreign currency overdue interest from the purchase date of export bills to the collection date, and the Gwangju Bank is obliged to refund the realization fees collected at the time of purchase of export bills.

(3) The interest rate on delayed payment in foreign currency determined by the Gwangju Bank shall be 19% per annum from January 15, 1997 to December 14, 1997, 23% per annum from December 15, 1997 to April 23, 1998, 25% per annum from April 24, 1998 to July 13, 1998, 24% per annum from July 14, 1998 to October 23, 1998, and 22% per annum from October 24, 1998 to January 17, 1999; and 19% per annum from January 18, 199 to April 24, 198 to 19, and the rate of interest on delayed payment in foreign currency to Gwangju Bank shall be 22% per annum from July 24, 198 to 198 to 20% per annum.

(d) Purchase of export bills of exchange;

On January 15, 1997, the Defendant Company filed an application for purchase equivalent to USD 65,650.36 for export bills of exchange, which were exported from the above franchisium and parts of the above franchisium with the Busan Eastdong Corporation. The Gwangju Bank determined that shipping documents, etc. submitted by the Defendant Company were not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the credit, and paid KRW 54,424,672 after purchasing the above export bills of exchange and deducting the conversion fees of USD 1,029,82 from the purchase of the above export bills of exchange to the Defendant Company. On January 17, 1997, the Defendant Company paid KRW 54,424,672 after deducting the conversion fees of USD 316,372.50 from the price of the letter of credit of this case (in combination with the above export bills of exchange) and paid KRW 4308,795 won to the Defendant Company, KRW 23627,2782.27

E. Refusal of payment by the Chinese bank, and winning of the defendant company

After purchasing an export bill, the Gwangju Bank sent it to the Chinese bank through the Seoul Branch of the Do-si bank through the shipping documents required in the letter of credit of this case. However, on January 31, 1997, the Chinese bank refused payment on the ground that there was no original indication in the commercial invoice and packing statement, and the date of shipment was omitted. On February 5, 1997, the Gwangju Bank was notified by the Chinese bank that it refused payment of the letter of credit for the above reasons.

Afterwards, when the Gwangju Bank refused to pay the L/C price and urged the Defendants to pay the redemption obligation, the Defendant Company filed a lawsuit against the Chinese bank for a L/C price claim, and the first instance court (Seoul District Court Decision 97Gahap65746 delivered on February 26, 1998) rejected the appeal court (Seoul High Court Decision 98Na18072 delivered on August 24, 199), and received the L/C price and delay damages from the Chinese bank on September 22, 199.

(f) Transfer of claims;

After that, on January 15, 2001, Gwangju Bank transferred to the Plaintiff all claims related to the purchase of the export draft of this case against the Defendant Company, and notified the Defendant Company and the Defendant Park Jong-gu of the assignment of claims around January 2002.

2. Determination as to the primary claim against the defendant company

A. Occurrence of the obligation to repurchase by the Defendant Company

As seen above, Article 13(1) of the export transaction agreement of this case provides that in a case where the issuing bank of this case refuses to pay the L/C amount, the defendant company must pay back the redemption obligation to the Gwangju bank as a matter of course on the sole basis of the occurrence of the reasons therefor, and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Gwangju Bank, the Gwangju Bank and the defendant company confirmed through the export transaction agreement of this case that the legal nature of the purchase of the export draft is a sale of bills, and in addition, in a case where certain reasons arise in connection with the payment of the export draft, the Gwangju Bank and the defendant company agreed that the purchase of the export draft can be relieved of their rights by claiming the purchase price against the defendant company (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da2064 delivered on May 11, 196). Accordingly, pursuant to the repurchase agreement of this case, the plaintiff who was transferred the repurchase claim from the Gwangju Bank shall have foreign currency claims equivalent to the amount of redemption principal and the interest in default under the relevant

(b) Specific amount of redemption bonds;

The Defendant Company is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of delay interest at the rate of 19% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from September 16, 2000 to the day of full payment of the repurchase principal and the amount converted into won currency of the principal of the export draft of this case and the interest on default.

① Default interest on the instant bill of exchange amounting to USD 65,650.36

The interest accrued from January 15, 1997 to December 14, 1997

USD 11,414 ($ 65,650.36) x 334 days ± 365 days x 19% below in the case of calculating interest due to default, but less than $1 in the case of calculating interest due to default)

The Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea War”) shall be the person who was unable to pay the unpaid interest from December 15, 1997 to April 23, 1998.

USD 5,377 ($ 65,650.36) 】 130 days ±365 days x 23%)

B. Non-payment interest from April 24, 1998 to July 13, 1998

USD 3,642 ($ 65,650.36 x 81 days ¡À365 days x 25%)

㉣ 1998. 7. 14.부터 1998. 10. 23.까지의 부도이자

USD 4,403 ($ 65,650.36 】102 ±365 】 24%)

Beginning with respect to the default interest from October 24, 1998 to January 17, 1999

USD 3,403 ($ 65,650.36 x 86 days ± 365 days x 22%)

The principal of the material material and material material and the interest from January 18, 1999 to September 15, 200, sought by the Plaintiff.

USD 20,743 ($ 65,650.36 x 607 days ¡À365 days x 19%)

Extraordinary : USD 48,982

② Default interest on a redemption price of an export bill equivalent to USD 316,372.50 in the instant case

The interest accrued from January 17, 1997 to December 14, 1997

USD 54,676 ($ 316,372.50 x 332 days ±365 days x 19%)

The Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea War”) shall be the person who was unable to pay the unpaid interest from December 15, 1997 to April 23, 1998.

USD 25,916 ($ 316,372.50 x 130 days ±365 days x 23%)

B. Non-payment interest from April 24, 1998 to July 13, 1998

USD 17,552 ($ 316,372.50 x 81 days ¡À365 days x 25%)

㉣ 1998. 7. 14.부터 1998. 10. 23.까지의 부도이자

USD 21,218 ($ 316,372.50 x 102 days ±365 days x 24%)

Beginning with respect to the default interest from October 24, 1998 to January 17, 1999

USD 16,399 ($ 316,372.50 x 86 days ±365 days x 22%)

The principal of the material material and material material and the interest from January 18, 1999 to September 15, 200, sought by the Plaintiff.

USD 9,965 ($ 316,372.50 x 607 days ¡À365 days x 19%)

Consolidated : USD 235,726

③ Accordingly, the purchase price up to September 15, 200 following the repurchase of the export draft of this case is 66,730.86 US$382,02.86 ($65,650.36 +316,372.50) and each of them is 284,708 US$28 ($48,982 +235,726).

④ Meanwhile, the Plaintiff claims the above USD 66,730.86 in Korean won pursuant to the provisions of the Gwangju Bank. Thus, on April 28, 2004, the date of collection, which is nearest to the date of this case, the Plaintiff converted the above USD 666,730.86 into KRW 1,167.70 per 1,167.70 per exchange rate for large customer telegraph repurchase as of April 28, 2004 ($ 66,730.86 x 1,167.70 x 1,167.70 x 446,08,093 ($ 382,02.86 x 1,167.70 x 1,167.70). Here, the amount of the instant bill of exchange to be refunded by the Gwangju Bank to the Defendant Company shall be the amount of export debt of the Defendant Company 27039,709

C. Determination as to the Defendant Company’s assertion

(1) The defendant company, prior to the negotiation of the export draft of this case, determined that there was no error in reviewing the letter of credit and shipping documents of this case and judged that there was no defect. The defendant company, as the negotiating bank, asserted that the defendant company cannot claim for the performance of the redemption obligation against the defendant company, as the negotiating bank, even if the purchase of the export draft itself judged that the export transaction between the Gwangju bank and the defendants is terminated, and that the conditions of the letter of credit and shipping documents do not coincide with the shipping documents, etc. later, the negotiating bank, as the negotiating bank, cannot be held liable to the defendant company, the exporting company, and only can claim only the amount of the letter of credit against the Chinese bank, the issuing

However, as seen above, Articles 3 and 13(1) of the Export Transaction Agreement of this case stipulate that, if the issuing bank of this case refuses to pay the L/C amount, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the redemption obligation to the Gwangju Bank on the sole basis of the occurrence of the reasons for refusal of payment, regardless of whether there is a defect that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the L/C in the export draft or shipping documents, and the above argument

(2) The defendant company again investigated whether the shipping documents, etc. were defective and then made a big decision, and the rejection of payment on the letter of credit was due to the fact that the Gwangju Bank made an error, such as a mistake or defect in collection methods or collection documents, in collecting the letter of credit to the Chinese bank. In such a case, Articles 3 and 13 (1) of the export transaction agreement of this case, which provide that the defendant company shall bear redemption obligations, lose fairness in violation of the principle of good faith, and imposes unfair disadvantage on the customer, or imposes unfair excessive liability on the customer. Thus, the defendant company's terms and conditions are invalid in violation of Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the rejection of payment on the letter of credit of this case was due to the error of Gwangju Bank, such as mistake or lack in collection methods or collection documents, in collecting the letter of credit against the Chinese bank.

In addition, the negotiating bank's check and examine whether the export draft and shipping documents comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit can be determined by ascertaining whether there is a justifiable reason for the issuing bank to refuse the payment of the export draft and the shipping documents and the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, and considering the result and the possibility of redemption by the negotiating party, it merely aims to determine whether to purchase the bill of exchange and shipping documents and the terms and conditions of the negotiation, and not to decide whether to impose redemption obligations on the negotiating party. If it is impossible to impose redemption obligations on the negotiating party, the negotiating bank should strictly investigate the shipping documents and frequently refuse the negotiation of the export draft, so it is impossible for the negotiating party to promptly realize the export bill, and even if purchasing the export bill, the increase in the realization fees received by the negotiating bank is anticipated. In light of the above circumstances, the above provisions are reasonable in terms of prompt acquisition of the export price through prompt negotiation of the export bill, which is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, and are unfairly unfavorable to the customer, or are not subject to damages liability against the terms and conditions.

(3) In addition, the Defendant Company asserts that the claim for repurchase of this case is an exercise of the right of recourse under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act against the Defendant Company, the drawer of the export bill of this case, and one year after the maturity of the bill of exchange. The Defendant Company asserted that the claim for repurchase of the Defendant Company extinguished by the statute of limitations inasmuch as the claim for repurchase of this case was filed on January 30, 2002, which was one year after the expiration of the prescription period, even if the date when the Gwangju Bank presented the bill of exchange to the Chinese Bank (as of January 20, 1997) or the date when it notified the Chinese Bank of the acceptance (as of January 31, 1997) or the date when it notified the Chinese Bank of the rejection of acceptance (as of February 5,

However, in the case of refusal of payment by the issuing bank of the letter of credit under the repurchase agreement of this case, Gwangju Bank has a claim for redemption of the bill of exchange and shipping documents against the defendant company. This is a right recognized by the above export transaction agreement separate from the right of recourse against the issuer of the bill of exchange under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. The plaintiff's primary claim of this case does not exercise the right of recourse under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act against the issuer of the bill of exchange. Thus, the plaintiff's exercise of the right of recourse under the above export transaction agreement is clear. Thus, the above assertion that the period of prescription of the plaintiff's claim for repurchase is one year is without merit, and the above repurchase claim is five years as commercial claim under the Commercial Act and the period of prescription is in progress from February 5, 1997 when the Gwangju Bank received the notice of refusal of payment from the Chinese bank. Thus, it is clear that the lawsuit of this case was filed on January 30, 2002, which is five years after it is without merit.

(4) The defendant company also asserts that the Gwangju Bank or the plaintiff could not exercise its claim for repurchase because it did not return the export bills and shipping documents of this case, although it did not return them.

However, according to the evidence No. 1, Article 16 (1) of the export transaction agreement of this case provides that "in the event of the repayment of obligations to the bank under this agreement, the bank shall not return the export bills and shipping documents to the exporter at the time of the repayment of obligations, etc." Accordingly, the Gwangju bank or the plaintiff may exercise the repurchase claim of this case even if the export bills and shipping documents were not returned. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Park Sang-hoon

A. The parties' arguments

(1) Plaintiff’s assertion

On January 10, 1997, the defendant Park Jong-sung established the guarantee limit of the obligation to be borne by the defendant company to the Gwangju Bank on the basis of the export transaction agreement with the Gwangju Bank. As such, the defendant company's obligation to pay 397,150,000 won out of the repurchase obligation due to the repurchase of the export draft of this case by the defendant company.

(2) Defendant Park Sang-young’s assertion

(A) On the basis of the letter of guarantee (Evidence A2) dated January 10, 1997, the Plaintiff asserted that he is responsible for the joint and several surety for the redemption of the export draft of this case, but the Defendant Park Gambling had been under brain surgery from March 1996, and was discharged from the office of representative director in fact. The purchase of the export bill of this case was done after the Cho Gambing had been entrusted with the operation of the Defendant Company.

(B) On the other hand, Defendant Park Jong-chul had engaged in export transactions on a large scale with the Gwangju Bank prior to being responsible for the operation of the Defendant Company. At that time, in relation to export transactions on several occasions, the representative director of Gwangju Bank signed and sealed the scope of the guaranteed obligation and the guarantee limit, and attached the seal on the blank letter, such as Gap evidence No. 2, in which the guarantee limit was public, to the Gwangju Bank, and issued it. However, the transactions giving the above blank blank cover guarantee was all terminated at that time.

(C) However, when the export transaction of this case was at issue after the completion of such export transaction, the Gwangju Bank arbitrarily stated in the column for the scope of the guaranteed obligation, “the payment guarantee transaction of January 10, 1997” and “the export transaction of December 23, 1996,” and “the guarantee limit column” in the column for the guarantee obligation, and forged the collateral guarantee guarantee guarantee certificate, which was received before the completion of the exercise of the supplement right as if the evidence No. 2 was made in connection with the export transaction of this case. Even if the above domestic guarantee certificate was made by the Defendant Park Jong-si, the scope of the guaranteed obligation column for the above guaranteed obligation was written by the employees of the Gwangju Bank without legitimate authority, and thus, it was null and void for the Defendant Park Jong-ok, and therefore, for the Defendant Park-young, the obligation of this case was not borne by the Defendant Company.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleading to the above-mentioned evidences and evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 25, each statement of evidence Nos. 25, Es. 14, 16, and 19, each statement of evidence Nos. 14, 19, and evidence No. 16 to 19, contrary to this, and testimony of a witness of the first instance court No. 6 does not interfere with the above recognition.

(1) At the time of entering into the export transaction agreement of this case, Defendant Park Jong-young, as the representative director of the Defendant Company, signed the export transaction agreement in writing.

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant Company requested the Gwangju Bank to open a local letter of credit on the ground of the instant letter of credit in order to receive the above goods from a domestic manufacturer on the ground of the instant letter of credit.

(3) If the Gwangju Bank opened a local letter of credit on behalf of the defendant company, the defendant company shall deliver the above local letter of credit opened as above to the domestic manufacturer, and the manufacturer shall be discounted by his bank. The Gwangju Bank shall receive the payment of the local letter of credit from the issuing bank, and the Gwangju Bank shall, upon purchasing the export bill of this case, pay the remainder after deducting the payment of the above local letter of credit from the Chinese bank, and then finally receive the payment from the Chinese bank for the letter of credit of this case.

(4) Accordingly, the Gwangju Bank opened a local letter of credit on January 10, 1997, and through its employees, prepared a limited collateral guarantee (Evidence A2) from the defendant Park Jong-dong, the representative director of the defendant company. At the time of the preparation of the letter of collateral guarantee, employees of the Gwangju Bank directly stated "payment guarantee transaction as of January 10, 1997" and "one hundred thousands worth" related to the establishment of the local letter of credit, but the export transaction agreement of this case was not written in the column of the guaranteed obligation, and on the other hand, defendant Park Jong-dong signed and sealed the letter of collateral guarantee.

(5) The Gwangju Bank issued a collateral guarantee that the export transaction agreement of this case was not written as the guaranteed obligation, and entered in the column for export transaction agreement of December 23, 1996, which is the export transaction agreement of this case, in the column for the scope of the guaranteed obligation, on the ground that the said collateral guarantee was received in connection with the series of export transaction of this case at the time in the near and near.

C. Determination

According to the above facts, although the defendant Park Jong-gu prepared the instant limited probation guarantee certificate (Evidence A2) and delivered it to the Gwangju Bank, there was only the payment guarantee transaction agreement as of January 10, 1997 in the column for the scope of the guaranteed obligation at the time, but later the Gwangju Bank entered the supplementary entry in the export transaction agreement as of December 23, 1996, and there seems to be no prior consent or approval from the defendant Park Jong-gu in relation to this point.

As to this, the plaintiff argued to the effect that, at the time of the establishment of the above collateral guarantee, the plaintiff prepared the export transaction agreement of this case and the payment guarantee transaction agreement of this case as of January 10, 1997 with the intent to guarantee all of them, and omitted entry of the above collateral guarantee in the export transaction agreement as of January 10, 197 as to the employees of the Gwangju Bank and the defendant Park Jong-ok's mistake, the above supplement is within the scope of legitimate authority, and the above supplement is limited to the scope of legitimate authority, and even without the above supplement, the defendant Park Jong-gu bears the guarantee liability for the repurchase obligation of this case pursuant to the above collateral guarantee.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the export transaction agreement of this case and the payment guarantee transaction agreement of this case as of January 10, 1997 are closely connected with each other. However, the above contract of this case was prepared on January 10, 1997, such as the above payment guarantee transaction agreement of this case. The export transaction agreement of this case was prepared on December 23, 1996, and the contract of this case must be written in detail as the limited contract of this case, not the comprehensive contract of this case, and the guarantee contract of this case must be written in detail as the guarantee contract of this case. In light of the above fact, since the export transaction agreement of this case was omitted not only as of January 10, 1997, but also as of January 10, 1997, the export transaction agreement of this case was written in the column of the guaranteed obligation of this case, it is difficult to conclude that it was within the reasonable scope of authority of Gwangju Bank's ex post facto supplement, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

In addition, in light of the fact that the redemption obligations of the Defendant Company did not arise under the payment guarantee transaction agreement as of January 10, 1997, but arising under the export transaction agreement of this case, it cannot be accepted that the Defendant Park Jong-young bears the obligation to guarantee the redemption obligations of this case based on the above contract, even if there is no supplementary statement in the above contract,.

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument against the defendant Park Jong-young is without merit.

(2) Since the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Park Jong-young was filed in favor of the defendant company, it is sufficient to determine whether the defendant company's principal claim against the defendant company is guaranteed by the principal claim against the defendant company. However, considering the above principal claim guaranteed by the defendant Park Jong-young as well as the principal claim against the plaintiff's conjunctive claim (the claim for return of rent, the agreement or the claim for return of unjust enrichment) can not be acknowledged for the above reasons. Further, if it is deemed that the defendant Park Jong-young's claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant Park Jong-young's principal claim against the defendant company, the plaintiff Park Jong-young did not claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant company's principal claim against the defendant company, and it is not reasonable to acknowledge that the defendant company's claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant Lee Jong-ho company's principal claim for the above payment of the letter of credit amount and it is not reasonable to acknowledge that the defendant company's claim for the above payment of the letter of credit amount was made in favor of the defendant bank.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 650,261,720 won and 375,643,077 won of the redemption principal from September 16, 200 to the full payment date of the redemption principal, among the amounts calculated as above, in accordance with the plaintiff's claim, the defendant company is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 19% per annum from September 16, 200 to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant company is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Park Jong-young is justified. The judgment of the court of first instance is just as the conclusion, but the part against the defendant Park Jong-young was unfair (the full payment of the guaranteed debt against the defendant Park Jong-young was recognized). Thus, the part against the defendant Park Jong-young is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company shall be dismissed, and the appeal against the defendant company shall be dismissed.

[Attachment List of Appointed]

Judges Yuwon rules (Presiding Judge)