[1] The case holding that where the former principal bank received a payment guarantee from a new principal bank as a security for loan claims due to a change in the debtor's principal bank, the guarantee period stated in the payment guarantee certificate and the period for claiming the performance of guarantee obligations cannot be deemed as a mere example

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that it cannot be deemed that the new guaranteed obligation was approved after the expiration of the payment guarantee period or the waiver of the benefit of the expiration of the guarantee period

[1] The case holding that, in case where the former principal bank received a payment guarantee from a new principal bank as a security due to the change of the debtor's principal bank, the guarantee period under the payment guarantee is set not later than the end of the guarantee period, and the guarantee period for the performance of the guarantee obligation is set within two months after the expiration of the guarantee period, the former principal bank changed the payment guarantee to the effect that the guarantee period is extended by setting the guarantee period as at a earlier date than the end of the guarantee obligation, and it is concluded within two months after the expiration of the guarantee period, in light of the fact that the former principal bank entered into a contract that the guarantee period is within two months after the expiration of the guarantee period, the payment guarantee period and the period for the performance of the guarantee obligation stated in the payment guarantee certificate cannot be deemed as just an example, since there is a disposition for transaction in a clearing house prior to

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that it cannot be deemed that the new guarantee liability was granted after the expiration of the guarantee period, or the waiver of the benefit of the guarantee period expired

[1] Articles 105, 428, and 430 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 177 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da27784 delivered on October 27, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2774)

National Bank of Korea (Attorney Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Industrial Bank of Korea (Attorney Kim Jong-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 97Na3857 delivered on December 26, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The lower court determined that, in light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff extended the guarantee period of KRW 390,000 from November 30, 1991 to December 2, 199; (b) the Plaintiff extended the guarantee period of KRW 150,000 to KRW 390,00 in installments (from November 29, 199); and (c) the Plaintiff extended the guarantee period of KRW 546,000 to the forest land owned by the Defendant as collateral; and (d) the Plaintiff extended the guarantee period of KRW 97,000,000 to KRW 9,000,000,000,000 for the first five months after the expiration of the guarantee period of KRW 150,000,000,000,000; and (e) the guarantee period of KRW 97,000,000,000,000,000 for the first nine months after the expiration of the guarantee period of the guarantee period.

In addition, the interpretation of Article 430 of the Civil Code or Article 1 (4) of the Agreement on Guarantee of Payment, and Article 1 (4) of the Banking Supervisory Board on Financial Dispute Resolution is not applicable to this, and therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of terms and conditions, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of terms and conditions. Accordingly, all of the grounds of appeal are not acceptable.

2. In this case, since the last guarantee period of the payment guarantee of this case expires on August 9, 1995, the plaintiff is entitled to request the company to change the guarantee period of the company to a payment guarantee certificate setting a new guarantee period after the expiration date pursuant to the provisions of the Basic Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions, and despite the demand to set a guarantee period of not less than 10 days, if the company fails to comply with such demand, the company lost the benefit of the period, and notwithstanding the demand that the defendant was able to be held liable for the guarantee, the plaintiff did not take any measures before and after the expiration of the guarantee period, and then the company exceeded the guarantee period and the claim period of two months after the expiration of the guarantee period. Thus, the defendant's payment guarantee letter of this case acquired by the plaintiff is changed in exchange for the guarantee that the company provided to the plaintiff. The defendant set up the company's real estate in preparation for the performance of the original guarantee obligation of the plaintiff, and even if there is no change in the plaintiff's claim against the company, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as violating the principle of good faith.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or omission of judgment as to the good faith principle. Therefore, this part of the grounds for appeal

3. The court below found the plaintiff's failure to pay the guaranteed obligation on the grounds of the company's default without mentioning the company's default following the date of the company's default, and requested the company to pay the guaranteed obligation on the grounds of the company's default. However, the defendant did not appear to have been able to pay the company's default at the first default and late in p.m., and thereafter, the plaintiff requested the performance of the guaranteed obligation on October 7, 1995 by stating that the date of requesting performance was stated on October 11, 1995, but the defendant could not respond to the payment after the expiration of the period, and refused to pay the guarantee obligation by signing and sealing it. However, on October 13, 1995, the court below held that it is difficult for the plaintiff's employee to refer to the plaintiff's duty to the company's credit planning division of the company's default on the duty of the company, and it is difficult for the defendant to acknowledge the defendant's duty to pay the guaranteed obligation by sending it to the company's expiration of the guarantee obligation.

In this regard, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to waiver of benefits or acceptance of debt due to the expiration of the payment guarantee period. Therefore, this part of the ground for

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)