In a case where it is reasonable to exclude binding force in light of a comprehensive contract clause concerning secured debt of a financial institution, etc., which is printed in the form of a general transaction clause, in a case where it is specified as an example.

Unless there are special circumstances, a contract to establish a collateral security shall be interpreted as a disposal document. However, in the event that the contract to establish a collateral security is uniformly printed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the form of a general transaction agreement, it is reasonable to interpret the scope of the secured obligation as a general transaction agreement, even if the contract clause states the scope of the secured obligation in addition to the loan obligation granted by the establishment of the collateral security right in addition to the loan obligation and the existing obligation and all other obligations arising from other causes that may be borne in the future in addition to the loan obligation granted by the establishment of the collateral security right, it seems that the interpretation of the scope of the secured obligation in accordance with the printed contract text would go against the general loan practices of the financial institution, etc., and it is reasonable to interpret the parties' intent that only the loan obligation in question is an agreement to establish the secured obligation of the collateral security right as the secured obligation of the financial institution, etc., it is reasonable to exclude the binding force by deeming that the comprehensive statement on the secured obligation in the above

Articles 357 and 360 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1152 decided Nov. 11, 1986 (Gong1987, 1988) (Gong1987, 1568) (Gong1568 decided Jun. 26, 1990)

Lee Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney Lee Sung-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the Fisheries Cooperatives

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na45174 delivered on April 11, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above-mentioned 2 of the ship of this case (Milsung 101), which was co-owned with the non-party regular school, regular school and long-term school, as the contract of this case on July 19, 1985, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant on April 1, 1986 through the non-party 1. The above-mortgage 2 of the contract of this case was concluded with the above-mortgage 3 of the above-mortgage 1 of the above-mortgage 2 of the loan of this case (the above-mortgage 2 of this case's loan of this case's 197,76,000 won and interest on the non-party 2 of this case's loan of this case's 107,000 won and the above 707,07,000 won and 707,07,000 won and 197,07,000 won and 17,07,07,00.7.1.

2. However, barring any special circumstance, a contract to establish a collateral security has to be interpreted as a written contract, barring any special circumstance. However, in a case where the written contract to establish a collateral security is a contract which is printed and used in the form of a general transaction agreement at a time in a financial institution, etc., the scope of the secured obligation should be stated in the contract clause as a comprehensive including all existing or future obligations in addition to the relevant loan obligations that have been borrowed as the establishment of the collateral security right, even if the scope of the secured obligation is stated in the contract clause as a whole in addition to the relevant loan obligations that have been incurred by the establishment of the collateral security right, the interpretation of the scope of the secured obligation in accordance with the terms of a contract printed out in light of various circumstances, such as the circumstances leading up to the establishment of each existing obligation and the relationship between each obligation and the maximum debt amount of the collateral security right, it would rather be contrary to the general loan practices of financial institutions, etc., and the intent of the parties to the contract is reasonable to interpret only the relevant loan obligations as the secured obligation of the collateral.

According to the facts and records established by the court below in this case (in particular, at the date of pleading Nos. 6-1, 2 and 8 of the court of first instance, the defendant's attorney at the date of pleading No. 6-1, 2 and 1985.7.19, 1985.7.19, the amount of the loan for building the ship of this case and the amount of the loan for building the other ship of the non-party Kim Jong-ok, which is jointly and severally guaranteed by the above Jong Jong-ok, shall be equal to 97,760,00 won, and each of the above vessels shall be 20,000,000 won with the maximum debt amount, respectively, was separately established, and the non-party Jong-dae was again provided with the loan of 30,000,000 won from the defendant as collateral, and the amount of the loan of this case shall not exceed the maximum debt amount of 205,000,000 won with respect to the vessel of this case as collateral No.25.

In addition, the non-party Jong-dae's joint and several liability for the loan of the building fund to the non-party Kim Jong-ok's other vessel (Osung 102), but the above Kim Jong-ok had not jointly and severally guaranteed the loan of the building fund to the ship of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the owner of each of the above vessels was willing to provide each other's vessel as joint security for the loan of the building fund to the other vessel by mutually guaranteeing the loan of the building fund

In light of the aforementioned various circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret that at the time of establishing a mortgage on the instant vessel, the intent of the parties at the time of establishing a mortgage on the instant vessel was to agree with the obligation to borrow the instant vessel as a collateral obligation, and it is reasonable to interpret that a joint and several surety obligation on the instant vessel’s loan obligation separately secured by another vessel (Oi.e., 102) is not included in the aforementioned collateral obligation. Therefore, even if there is a printed letter stating that the existing obligation is included in both the secured obligation and the secured obligation, it is nothing more than a general example.

Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the secured obligation of the right to collateral security, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)