Korea Technology Finance Corporation (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and eight others

July 25, 2002

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. and Defendant 2 jointly and severally with 630,925,008 won and 353,371,914 won among them shall be 20% per annum from April 1, 199 to February 29, 200, 18% per annum from March 1, 200 to November 6, 2001, and 271,428,304 won per annum from November 7, 2001 to the date of full payment, and 18% per annum from May 9, 200 to November 6, 201 to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant 3 and 4 shall be jointly and severally and severally with Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. and Defendant 2, as to KRW 336,682,052 of the amount described in paragraph (a) and KRW 335,917,712 of the amount and KRW 20% per annum from April 1, 1999 to February 29, 200, KRW 18% per annum from March 1, 2000 to November 6, 2001, and KRW 25% per annum from November 7, 2001 to the date of full payment.

C. Defendant 5 shall pay 39,868,737 of the amount described in subparagraph (a) and 339,091,203 of the amount described in subparagraph (a) jointly with Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. and Defendant 2 at the rate of 20% per annum from April 1, 1999 to February 29, 200, 18% per annum from March 1, 200 to November 6, 2001, and 25% per annum from November 7, 2001 to the day of full payment.

D. Defendant 6 is jointly and severally with Defendant 1,406,678 out of the amount set forth in subparagraph (a) and 67,272,576 out of the amount set forth in subparagraph (a) and 20% per annum from April 1, 1999 to February 29, 200, 18% per annum from March 1, 200 to November 6, 2001, and 25% per annum from November 7, 2001 to the date of full payment.

E. Defendant 7 is jointly and severally with Defendant 1,937,785 won and 44,848,384 won out of the amount set forth in subparagraph A (a) and 20% per annum from April 1, 1999 to February 29, 200, 18% per annum from March 1, 200 to November 6, 2001, and 25% per annum from November 7, 2001 to the date of full payment.

F. Defendant 8 is jointly and severally with Defendant 1,937,785 won and 44,848,384 won out of the amount set forth in subparagraph (a) and 20% per annum from April 1, 1999 to February 29, 200, 18% per annum from March 1, 200 to November 6, 2001, and 25% per annum from November 7, 2001 to the date of full payment.

G. Defendant 9 Co., Ltd. in collaboration with Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. for KRW 100,00,000 among the amounts set forth in paragraph (a) and KRW 25,00,00 among them, from October 13, 1998; KRW 27,00,000 from October 20, 1998; KRW 7,300,000 from November 12, 1998 for KRW 8,306,028 from November 19, 198 for KRW 32,393,972 from November 24, 1998; and KRW 6% from November 24, 201 to November 25, 200 each year.

sub-payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The facts of the reasons for the attached Table 1 are as follows: between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 corporation, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8, Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Gap evidence 9-1, 10-1, 2, Gap evidence 12-1, 13-1, 2, Gap evidence 13-1, 15-1, 15-2, Gap evidence 16-1, 17, 10-4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 10-1, 11-2, and 12-1, 13-2, 14, 15-1, 16, 17, 19-2, and 3 of the above evidence under the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendants are jointly and severally or jointly liable to pay each of the amounts specified in paragraph (1) of this Article to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the assertion by Defendant 5, 7, and 8

A. Determination on the renunciation of inheritance or the assertion of qualified acceptance

(1) Defendant 5, 7, and 8’s assertion

At the time of the death of the deceased non-party, the above Defendants failed to file an application for renunciation of inheritance or a qualified acceptance with the Seoul Family Court within three months from the date of the death of the deceased because they knew that the above deceased was liable for joint and several liability by concluding joint and several guarantee agreements with the Plaintiff regarding the cases Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this case. Accordingly, the Defendants filed an application for renunciation of inheritance or a qualified acceptance with the Seoul Family Court on May 14, 2002 and received an adjudication of acceptance of the qualified acceptance report with the above court No. 2001-Ma5514 of the above court on May 14, 2002, and against Defendant 7, the above court Nos. 999-Ma4807 of the above court on each of the waivers of inheritance against Defendant 8. Thus, they asserted to the purport that the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 5, 7, and 8 of this case constitutes unjust inheritance.

(2) Determination:

(A) Even if an adjudication was rendered on acceptance of a qualified acceptance report by the Family Court, this is effective as a result of the inheritor’s acceptance of the report by satisfying the requirements of the qualified acceptance, and it does not have the effect of confirming the qualified acceptance, but it is a matter to be resolved in accordance with the substantive law in a specific case. The above Defendants’ above reports on the qualified acceptance report should be done within three months from the date the inheritor became aware of the commencement of the inheritance under Articles 1030 and 1019(1) of the Civil Act, and the "date on which the inheritance was known" means the date on which the deceased was known of the occurrence of the cause of the commencement of the inheritance, and the above Defendants were aware of the death of the deceased at the time of January 9, 1998. Since it is obvious that the above Defendants’ waiver of inheritance or the qualified acceptance report was made after the expiration of three months from the above Defendants’ assertion, the above Defendants’ waiver of inheritance or the period of qualified acceptance is unlawful.

(B) Meanwhile, Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, which was amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002, provides that where an inheritor, without gross negligence, without knowing the fact that his/her inherited obligation exceeds inherited property, a qualified acceptance may be made within three months from the date he/she becomes aware of such fact (including the case deemed to have been granted simple acceptance under Article 1026 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Civil Act). However, this provision does not apply to this case from January 14, 202, which was the enforcement date of the above amended Civil Act, and as seen above, Article 1019(3) of the above amended Civil Act does not apply to this case where the above Defendants knew of the deceased’s death on Jan. 9, 1998 and failed to file a qualified acceptance report within three months thereafter.

(C) In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda of the above amended Civil Act provides that a person who was aware of the commencement of inheritance obligation from May 27, 1998 to the time prior to the enforcement of the above amended Civil Act does not know the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property within the period under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act without gross negligence, and a person who did not report the qualified acceptance even before the enforcement of the above amended Civil Act can make the qualified acceptance under Article 1019(3) of the above amended Civil Act within three months from the enforcement date of the above amended Civil Act. The Constitutional Court's decision of inconsistency with the Constitution becomes clear that Article 96Hun-Ga22, 97Hun-Ba2, 3 and 97Hun-Ba81, 96Hun-Ba24 and 25 (merged) of the above amended Civil Act had no effect on the above revised Civil Act's death and it cannot be seen that Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Addenda of the above amended Civil Act has become unconstitutional.

(D) Therefore, the above defendants' assertion of renunciation of inheritance or of qualified acceptance is without merit. (On the other hand, in full view of the purport of the pleading in the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, the above deceased owned shares of 80.2/160 of the total 160.4m2 of the total 160.4m2 of the total 160.4m2 of the total 160m2 of the total 160.4m2 of the total 160m2 of the total 160m2 of the total 4m2 of the above deceased's death and the above 2,5,6,7, and8 after the death of the above deceased agreed on the division of the inherited property and completed the registration of transfer on March 24, 198 on March 24, 1998, so long as the above defendant 2,5,6,7, and8, the heir of the above deceased, who disposed of the inherited property, it shall be considered as simple approval of inheritance (Article 1026 subparag. 1).

B. Determination as to the assertion on the scope of guarantee liability

(1) Defendant 5 and 7 asserts that it is unfair to recognize unlimited liability for joint and several several liability even to the heir, inasmuch as the guarantee period of each of the instant joint and several liability agreements exceeds five years, and the guaranteed principal is too large, and there is no restriction on the scope of the obligation. In light of all the circumstances such as motive and purpose of concluding each of the instant joint and several liability agreements, details of the guaranteed obligation, financial institution’s security value determination relationship, and other transaction practices, it is reasonable to interpret that the intent of the parties was limited to the guarantee of transaction within a certain scope, unlike the written contract, unlike the written contract, as it is reasonable to interpret that the comprehensive statement on the secured obligation in the contract is merely an example of a general transaction agreement, and thus, it should be limited within a certain scope by excluding binding force.

(2) However, according to the evidence in Paragraph (1) of this case, each of the joint and several guarantee agreements of this case includes the incidental debt within the scope of the claim for indemnity that the plaintiff would have against the above defendant due to the credit guarantee for the individual loan obligations of the defendant 1 corporation, and the obligation to guarantee is specified at the time of the conclusion of the guarantee contract, and the guarantee period is somewhat long or large, or the principal of the guarantee is large. The purport of each of the joint and several guarantee agreements of this case is to limit the scope of the guaranteed obligation of the joint and several sureties. Since the comprehensive statement on the secured obligation of this case in each of the joint and several guarantee agreements of this case includes the obligation of the defendant 1 corporation within the scope of the claim for indemnity that the plaintiff would have against the defendant 1 corporation, there is no ground to interpret the intention of the parties

C. Determination on the assertion of violation of the good faith principle

Defendant 5 and 7 did not give any notice to the heir of the above deceased from the time when the credit guarantee accident of Defendant 1 occurred until the time when the plaintiff subrogated for the loan, and did not give notice despite being aware of the fact that the property status of the above defendant, the principal debtor, was significantly deteriorated, and deprived the above inheritor of the opportunity to take appropriate measures. Thus, the above inheritor's right to seek full performance of the joint and several surety obligation of this case is contrary to the principle of good faith. However, the above circumstance asserted by Defendant 5 and 7 is in violation of the principle of good faith. Thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff seeking full performance

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Lee Jae-soo