The effect where a creditor submits a claim statement that he/she will appropriate for the repayment of a specific claim in the voluntary auction procedure and receives payment without objection from the auction court.

If a creditor submits a claim statement that he/she will appropriate for the repayment of a specific claim in the voluntary auction procedure, and expresses his/her intention to repay the claim, and if he/she is paid without objection from an auction court, the specific claim is extinguished simultaneously with the above payment. Therefore, the interests of interested guarantors cannot be undermined by restoring the extinguished obligation to a third party.

Article 34(2) of the Auction Act, Article 476 and Article 477 of the Civil Act

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Yu Chang-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 73Na273,274 delivered on January 17, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

The judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2-2 (2);

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since a creditor submitted a statement of claim that he would appropriate the claim for repayment of a specific bond in a voluntary auction procedure and expressed his intention of satisfaction of obligation and received an objection from the auction court without objection, as long as the above specific bond is extinguished at the same time as the creditor received the above payment, the creditor cannot harm the interests of the third party of the interested parties by restoring the extinguished debt. Accordingly, the above opinion of the court below is just and there is no reason to argue that the above opinion of the court below cannot be justified and there is no reason to attack. Thus, according to the records, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's claim for overdue interest from August 12, 1968 to July 9, 1969, which was paid at the time of the preliminary auction price 2nd to the auction price 1970,000 won for the first time after reviewing the legal principles as to the above loan interest rate of 605,000 won for the first time.

With respect to Article 2-1 (1),

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below on this point is that the defendant et al. has a joint and several obligation guarantee of 6.5 million won against the plaintiff of the principal debtor established on May 17, 1968. However, the court below's reasoning is without merit.

With respect to the third point:

In lending money to the principal obligor of this case, the court below acknowledged the negligence caused by the delay in collecting the loan of this case against the principal obligor, such as the negligence in the evaluation process of the collateral and the bad possibility of collecting the loan of this case, and according to the records, the above recognition was legitimate. Thus, the court below's decision is just, and there is no reason to argue that the court below's negligence on the part of the said Plaintiff is just in determining the responsibility and amount of the defendant, and it is not considered because the defendant et al. are joint and several sureties. In determining the comparative amount, the court below's decision that the delayed compensation against the defendant et al. shall be accepted within the limit of 7.5 million won and the remaining delay liability shall be exempted, and there is no ground for illegality such as the theory of action by the court below that the defendant et al. shall be exempted from the other delay liability.

With respect to the fourth point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below is liable to pay only 7.5 million won damages for delay to the plaintiff by the defendant, etc., and other damages for delay, which are judged to be comparative negligence as stated in the above reasoning. The judgment of the court below did not deviate from the judgment of the court below, and the judgment of the court below seems to have judged that there was no trace of adopting the written appraisal by the non-party. Therefore, it is without merit.

With respect to the fifth point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that there was negligence, such as the original edition, even in case of the occurrence of the non-performance of obligation and damages for delay by the timely evidence. Thus, since the court below compared the above evidence stated in the records and reviewed it, it can be justified in the decision of the court below which recognized the above facts, and there is no ground for illegality that misleads the facts that were erroneous in the evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit,.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)