The case holding that it is reasonable to limit the liability of joint and several sureties to 80% on the principle of good faith or fairness where a financial institution grants a loan again to an obligor and receives a joint and several sureties without notifying a joint and several sureties of the fact of registration of a person who has a bad credit transaction for the obligor in order to obtain a repayment

The case holding that it is reasonable to limit the liability of joint and several sureties to 80% on the principle of good faith or fairness where a financial institution grants a loan again to an obligor and receives a joint and several sureties without notifying a joint and several sureties of the fact of registration of a person who has bad credit transactions for the obligor as a result of repayment of overdue loan to

[1] Articles 2 and 429 of the Civil Act

Cheongyang Livestock Cooperatives (Attorney Kim Yong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Private Interest

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 9,078,578 won and 8,761,716 won with 18% interest per annum from March 16, 2001 to the full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Five minutes of the litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,348,223 won with 10,952,146 won with 18% interest per annum from March 16, 2001 to the full payment.

On January 4, 1999, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 10,952,146 to the Non-party leapman with a maturity of KRW 10,952,146 on January 4, 2001, the agreed interest rate of KRW 15.5% per annum, and overdue interest rate of KRW 23% per annum, and agreed to apply the rate changed according to changes in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. On the same day, the Defendant and Non-party 1 agreed to apply the rate of interest for the above loan obligation of the above leap takeover. The above leap acquisition lost the benefit due to the failure to repay the principal and interest of the above loan, and the interest rate of KRW 396,077 from the above loan loan from March 15, 201 is deemed to have ceased to dispute between the parties, or the Defendant did not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, the Defendant, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, shall pay the Plaintiff the above loan and the above agreement to the Plaintiff within 1301,14,294.7.36.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant is not liable for the performance of the obligation under the above joint and several sureties agreement, since he did not hear any explanation about the overall meaning of the loan of this case and the joint and several sureties from the plaintiff's employee at the time of the above joint and several sureties agreement, and he did not know that there are only one other than the defendant.

However, the Plaintiff’s loan of this case is a general household loan transaction agreement ordinarily made at a financial institution. The Defendant’s joint and several sureties agreement is an agreement ordinarily made in the form of a loan agreement, and it is difficult to see that there exist any additional matters that the Plaintiff’s employee should explain to the Defendant, a joint and several sureties, in addition to the loan amount and the personal information of the principal debtor. In addition, if there are more than one joint and several sureties other than the Defendant, the Defendant would become a joint and several sureties agreement under more favorable terms, and thus, it cannot

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that since the above leap transfer was registered as a bad trader at the time of the financial institution, but the plaintiff's employee did not provide any explanation about this, the defendant cannot be held liable for the repayment of the above loan, since the defendant received an agreement for joint and several guarantee

In light of the above facts, since July 18, 198, the above leap takeover was registered as a credit bad trader since it was impossible to repay the loan to the plaintiff, and it was out of the credit bad trader by repaying the above loan obligation with the loan loan of this case on January 4, 1999, the above leap takeover date, and the facts leading to the above leap takeover agreement without hearing any explanation about this point from the plaintiff's employees or above leap takeover, shall be deemed to have been led to the confession of the defendant's assertion because there was no dispute between the parties or the plaintiff's assertion clearly, and so long as the above leap takeover was registered as a credit bad trader due to the delinquency of the loan to the plaintiff, it shall be presumed that the plaintiff was well aware of such registration fact, and if the plaintiff was not aware of the above 19% obligation of the above leap takeover as a credit bad trader's 29% of the above leap takeover's loan obligation to the defendant 2, a joint and several surety's 984% of the above judgment or 198.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the defendant shall be forced only to the defendant who is a joint and several surety, even though he had received the payment first prior to the loss of the time limit in the exercise of the above loan claim. However, in the case of joint and several surety, the joint and several surety does not have the right of peremptory and search defense, and the creditor has the right to choose who is the principal obligor and the joint and several surety, and therefore the defendant cannot be exempted from the obligation of repayment solely for the above reasons. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 9,078,578 (11,348,223 x 80% x 80% x 146 x 80% ) and 8,761,716 (10,952,146 x 80% ) out of the above money, with 18% interest per annum from March 16, 201 to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong-ho