The scope of liability of joint and several sureties for credit transactions of agricultural products without determining the guarantee limit amount;

Where a person designated as a trader of an agricultural products joint wholesale market and the above joint wholesale market jointly and severally guaranteed by the above trader without setting a guarantee limit on the credit transaction of agricultural products, the joint and several liability shall be limited to the limit which the credit transaction was possible at the time of the contract, except in extenuating circumstances

Article 429 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da94 Decided July 6, 1965

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na3199 delivered on September 29, 197

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

First, we examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

As determined in this case, the court below held that the non-party co-defendant of the first instance trial on May 20, 1965 designated the non-party as a trader of the Seoul Agricultural Products Joint Wholesale Market under the agreement with the plaintiff, and was engaged in credit transactions with respect to the agricultural products of the said Joint Wholesale Market within the limit of 80 percent of the maximum debt amount that the plaintiff created the right to collateral security. The defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation that the non-party who did not set the guarantee limit amount to the plaintiff due to the above transaction, was able to conduct credit transactions with the plaintiff within the limit of 347,00 won of the maximum debt amount and the non-party was able to conduct credit transactions with the plaintiff within the limit of 80 percent of the maximum debt amount at the time of such transaction, barring any other special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the defendant joint and severally liable for joint and several liability of the non-party to the above non-party is written out within the maximum credit transaction amount at the time of such other special agreement, etc.

Therefore, the court below held that the defendant's joint and several liability for the case without such special agreement extends to the amount equivalent to 80 percent of the maximum debt amount of the defendant's joint and several liability of the former 347,000 won and the latter 1,200,000 won (the court below considered the maximum debt amount of the defendant as 1,250,000 won on the basis of the defendant's statement by the assent of both parties). In conclusion, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the limit of joint and several liability

Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal are different from the above judgment and opinion, and in the same case, it is reasonable that the defendant's guarantee liability exceeds the maximum amount of the right to collateral security over two times and the non-party bears all the obligations that the plaintiff bears.

However, since there is no ground to view that the above opinion should be taken in this case, the judgment of the court below which did not interpret it cannot be criticized as having judged the evidence inconsistent with the rule of experience.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is groundless and dismissed, and the costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the plaintiff. The defendant's appeal is with merit, and the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)