logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.03.27 2015다12130
구상금
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The continuous guarantee is unfair in light of the good faith to maintain and maintain the guarantee contract as it is, in the event that the continuous guarantee of an uncertain obligation arising from the continuous business relationship and there is a justifiable reason, such as the reliance on the principal debtor, etc., the guarantor may terminate the guarantee contract, barring any special circumstances.

At this time, whether there exists a justifiable reason to terminate a guarantee agreement shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the background leading up to the guarantee, relationship between the principal debtor and the guarantor, contents and period of the guarantee agreement, specific progress of debt increase, size of debt increase, trust of the principal debtor, whether and to the degree of loss of trust of the principal debtor, change in the status of the guarantor, status of the creditor and the guarantor, status of

If a joint and several sureties of a company's obligation arising from a continuous transaction between the company and a third party inevitably leaves the company's position as an officer or employee after retirement from the company, it is unreasonable in light of social norms to have the company continue to maintain the status of the joint and several sureties by a significant change in the circumstances constituting the basis of the joint and several sureties contract.

In such cases, the joint and several sureties should be deemed to be able to terminate the joint and several sureties contract unilaterally, except in special

(See Supreme Court Decisions 92Da2332 delivered on May 26, 1992, and 99Da61750 delivered on March 10, 200, etc.). Where the insurer pays the insurance proceeds due to an insured event, such as the policyholder’s nonperformance, while setting the guarantee period and guarantee limit with respect to the guarantee insurance contracts currently or future concluded with the policyholder.

arrow