[1] The method of interpreting the scope of secured obligation, which is comprehensively recorded, in a case where the document to establish a mortgage takes the form of a general transaction agreement printed in the same letter

[2] The case holding that each loan, which is repaid with the existing loan obligations secured by the right to collateral security, constitutes a credit of the same kind as the existing loan, but the loan obligations secured by a separate credit guarantee letter, which is not included in the secured debt of the right to collateral security

[1] Articles 105, 357(1), and 360 of the Civil Act; Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Articles 105, 357(1), and 360 of the Civil Act; Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da9508 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1973), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da36962 delivered on September 18, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2246), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2109 delivered on March 14, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 94)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Korea Development Bank (Attorney Cho Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives and one other (Attorney Cho Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004Na2608 delivered on April 12, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Unless there are special circumstances, a contract to establish a collateral security shall be interpreted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, as it is a disposal document. However, if the contract is a contract which is uniformly printed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the form of a general transaction clause, the scope of the secured obligation in the contract clause should be comprehensively included in the scope of the secured obligation in addition to the loan obligation granted by the establishment of the collateral security right, and all the obligations arising from other causes such as the existing or future burden in addition to the loan obligation incurred by the establishment of the collateral security right, it is reasonable to interpret the scope of the secured obligation in accordance with the printed terms and conditions of the contract in light of various circumstances, such as the process of concluding the contract on the collateral security, loan practice, relationship between the loan obligation and the maximum debt amount of the collateral security right, and whether the secured obligation is separately secured against the general loan practices of the financial institution, and it is reasonable to interpret the parties' intent to only the loan obligation as the secured obligation in the form of the collateral security agreement.

According to the records, the plaintiff's loan contract with the defendant 30 billion won was concluded on June 24, 195 as well as the loan contract with the defendant 10 billion won or less for the above 300 billion won, and the credit guarantee contract with the defendant 10 billion won or less for the above 300 billion won as well as the loan contract with the defendant 10 billion won or more for the above 300 billion won as a collateral. The loan contract with the defendant 30 billion won was entered as a credit guarantee contract with the defendant 10 billion won or less for the above 300 billion won, and the loan contract with the defendant 10 billion won or more for the above 300 billion won as a collateral was entered as a credit guarantee contract with the defendant 10 billion won or less for the above 100 billion won as a credit guarantee contract for the above 100 million won or more.

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the court below erred by holding that the above loans of KRW 33 million under the credit guarantee agreement of Defendant No. 33 million are not identical to the existing loans, but it is just in conclusion that the above loans of KRW 33 million are not included in the secured debt of this case, and it is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, even if there were errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to limited collateral security, it is not justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the limited collateral security, and therefore, it is also justified in the judgment below that the mortgage contract was terminated on May 20, 199 for the real estate of this case.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)