[1] The existence of the guarantor's right to terminate the contract of continuous guarantee (affirmative with limitation) and the judgment standard thereof

[2] Whether a civil guarantor can exercise the right of recourse on behalf of the holder who is the obligee pursuant to Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Code with respect to the payment obligations of bill prohibition (affirmative), and whether the guarantor is exempted from the liability of guarantee if the right of recourse is lost due to the obligee's intention or negligence (affirmative with qualification)

[3] The case holding that the holder, who is a holder of a bill, has lost his right of recourse against the endorser does not constitute an intentional or negligent act

[1] In a continuous guarantee contract, if there is a reasonable ground to terminate a guarantee contract as a guarantor, such as the reliance on the guarantor's trust on the principal debtor, it is not desirable in terms of social norms to have the guarantor maintain and continue the guarantee contract as it is. Thus, the guarantor can unilaterally terminate the guarantee contract, except in special circumstances where the other party's creditor, who is the other party, suffers losses which cannot be impliedly specified in the good faith principle, due to the termination of the contract. Whether there is a reasonable ground to terminate the guarantee contract shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the circumstances leading up to the guarantee, the relationship between the principal debtor and the guarantor, the contents of the guarantee contract, the relationship between the principal debtor and the guarantor, the specific progress of the increase in the debt, the degree of the loss of trust on the principal debtor

[2] Article 485 of the Civil Code provides that, in cases where a legal subrogation has a legal representative, if the security has been lost or diminished by the obligee's intentional act or negligence, the subrogation obligee shall be exempted from liability to the extent that it cannot be repaid due to the loss or decrease thereof. Thus, in cases where the holder of a promissory note refuses to pay the amount, the right of recourse is a right to seek performance of the endorser's liability for warranty against the payment of the amount of the amount, and thus, the right of recourse can be deemed as a security for the payment of the amount of the amount of the bill. If a civil guarantor with respect to the payment of the amount of the bill has made the payment of the amount of the bill, he/she may exercise the right of recourse, which is a right of subrogation against the obligee, pursuant to Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Code. If the obligee's right of recourse has been lost due

[3] The case holding that the holder, who is a holder of a bill, has lost his right of recourse against the endorser is not intentional or negligent

[1] Articles 2, 428, and 543 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 481, 482, and 485 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 481, 482, and 485 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu792 delivered on September 9, 1986 (Gong1986, 1384), Supreme Court Decision 92Da8668 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2400), Supreme Court Decision 96Da27858 delivered on December 10, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 311), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da48265 delivered on February 26, 2002 (Gong2002, 785)

Dongyang Integrated Financial Securities Co., Ltd. (Before the merger: Dongyang Integrated Financial Securities Co., Ltd.) (Law Firm Mayang, Attorneys Seo-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Kudong Urban Gas Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo-type et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na13890 delivered on June 14, 2000

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

1. The facts duly established by the court below after compiling the adopted evidence are as follows.

A. On June 21, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a bill transaction agreement with the Sejong Information and Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Syang”) with a limit of trading at KRW 20 billion (hereinafter referred to as the “instant bill transaction agreement”). The Defendant and the three representing directors of both parties jointly and severally guaranteed the payment of all obligations to the Plaintiff in the instant bill transaction agreement.

B. After that, when the three-years of the three-years of the three-years of the three-years of the three-years of the closing rate and the transaction companies came to rapidly fall, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice of termination of the guarantee contract to the effect that, on February 6, 1997, the Plaintiff would be liable for the guarantee of the three-years of the three-years of the three-years of the three-years of the three-years of the three-years of the three-years of the three

C. The Republic of Korea issued each of the bills of this case by designating each of the bills of this case as the addressee. The addressee of each of the bills of this case issued each of the bills of this case to Dongyang-sa Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongyang-saeng-sang-sang-sang (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongyang-sang-sang-sang-sang") or Yangyang-sa-sang (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongyang-sayang-sang") who is an affiliated company of the plaintiff, and endorsed and transferred each of the bills of this case. The Dong Yang-sa and the Dongyang-sayang-sang-sang-sang-sang-sang-sang-sang-sang-s

D. The Plaintiff did not take measures to preserve the right of recourse against endorsers within one year, which is the period of extinctive prescription under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, thereby losing the right of recourse to each of the instant bills.

2. First, we examine the defendant's ground of appeal regarding the termination of guarantee contract.

In a continuous guarantee agreement, if there is a reasonable ground to terminate a guarantee agreement as a guarantor, such as the reliance on the trust of the principal debtor, it is not desirable in social norms to have the guarantor maintain the guarantee agreement as it is. Thus, the guarantor can unilaterally terminate the guarantee agreement, except in special circumstances where the other party, as a result of the termination of the contract, causes losses that may not be impliedly specified in the principle of good faith, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da792, Sept. 9, 1986; 92Da8668, Jul. 14, 1992; 96Da27858, Dec. 10, 1996; 200Da48265, Feb. 26, 2002; 200Da48265, Feb. 26, 2002).

The court below held that there is no reasonable ground to terminate the guarantee agreement of this case in light of the following: the majority shareholder is the same person; the defendant's conclusion of the guarantee agreement of this case; the background leading up to the conclusion of the guarantee agreement of this case; the situation where the defendant, the creditor, was more easily aware of the financial standing of the plaintiff; and the fact that the defendant, the guarantor, was also making transactions under the bill transaction agreement of this case; and there was no reasonable ground to terminate the guarantee agreement of this case. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as

3. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal as to the violation of the good faith principle.

In principle, the Defendant shall be liable to guarantee the whole amount of the obligation for the three forms of bills within the scope of transactions under the Agreement on Transactions in Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, and even if the Plaintiff extended the scope of the Defendant’s liability for guarantee by means of endorsement and transfer from the Doyang-Sayang and the Doyang- Card for the purpose of receiving a promissory note payment from the Defendant under the Agreement on Transactions in Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, in light of the aforementioned special relationship between the Defendant and the three, the background leading up to entering into the Agreement on Contracts in the Agreement, and the degree of the Defendant’s perception as to the three-dimensional financial standings, etc., it cannot be deemed that imposing the Defendant’s liability for guarantee on each of the bills of this case acquired by the Plaintiff as above, and thus, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion in violation of the

4. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal as to the lawsuit trust.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the lawsuit of this case is based on the trust of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to support the fact that the endorsement and transfer, which was made at the time when the e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail

5. Next, we examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal as to the violation of the duty to preserve security.

Article 485 of the Civil Act provides that, in cases where a legal subrogation has a legal representative, if the security has been lost or diminished by the obligee's intentional act or negligence, the subrogation obligee shall be exempted from liability to the extent that it cannot be repaid due to the loss or reduction thereof. Thus, in cases where the holder of a promissory note has refused to pay a promissory note, the right to recourse is a right to seek performance of the endorser's liability for warranty against the payment of the amount, and thus, the right to recourse may be deemed a security against the payment of the amount. If a civil guarantor with respect to the payment of the amount of a promissory note has performed the obligation, he/she may exercise the right to recourse, which is a right of subrogation against the obligee, in subrogation of the obligee pursuant to Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Act. If the obligee's right to recourse has been lost due to his/her intentional act or negligence, the above surety shall be exempted from liability for the payment of the amount, barring any special

However, in this case, since the plaintiff did not take any measures to preserve the right of recourse against the so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called Mayang Card, the extinction of the right of recourse upon expiration of the prescription period is caused by the plaintiff's intentional or negligent act, and as stated by the court below, all the defendant and three were corporations whose major shareholders are non-party 1 and whose affiliated companies are so-called so-called Madong Group. Due to such special relation as above, the defendant entered into a guarantee agreement of this case in order to enhance the credit rating of the so-called Mayang issue and facilitate financing and business activities, and the plaintiff also trusted the defendant's credit standing more than three, with a sound financial structure than three, and therefore, it is recognized that the plaintiff would not be negligent in entering into an agreement of this case with the defendant on the transaction of this case under the defendant's guarantee that the plaintiff would not be held liable for damages or losses of the right of recourse to the bill or losses of the right of recourse to the bill due to the modification of the bill or losses of limitation period.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the guarantor's discharge due to the creditor's loss of security, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is justified, and the defendant's ground of appeal disputing the scope of discharge on the premise that the plaintiff was negligent, is without merit.

6. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the part against the Plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)