(a) Binding force of the words written in a written contract establishing a general transaction contract which has the form of the general transaction contract, printed in the same word;

(b) Whether the total amount of the debt incurred by the occurrence of additional debt after the creation of the right to collateral security falls under exceptional cases according to bank practices.

A. In the event that a contract to establish a mortgage between a bank and a person who has pledged his/her property to secure all debts in the future includes "the creation of a mortgage on real estate to secure all debts which the principal debtor owes to the bank in the future", the term "the creation of a mortgage on real estate to secure all debts, regardless of the type of the principal obligation or the time of its establishment," and even if the contract takes the form of a general transaction agreement printed in the same text, it shall be deemed a disposal document. Therefore, when the establishment of the petition is recognized, the bank's act of acquiring the security shall be acknowledged as the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stipulated in the contract, unless there are special circumstances, such as where it appears that the act of acquiring the security belongs to an example

B. It cannot be said that the prior collateral security right belongs to the same example in the bank’s practice of acquiring collateral, because additional debt incurred or the total debt incurred by additional debt exceeds the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security.

Articles 105 and 357 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Cho Young-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na22212 delivered on March 24, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the event that a contract to establish a mortgage between a bank and a person who has pledged his/her property to secure a financial obligation in the future states that "the principal debtor establishes a mortgage on the real estate of this case in order to secure all debts which are to be borne by the bank in the future", such agreement shall be construed as a "comprehensive collateral security" which covers all debts regardless of the kinds of principal debt or the establishment date of the principal debt, and even if the contract takes the form of a general transaction agreement printed in the same word, it shall be deemed a disposal document, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the act of acquiring the security by the bank is deemed to fall under the example or going beyond the custom in the bank lending relationship, it shall be recognized as the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the written contract. In addition, it shall not be immediately deemed that the prior collateral security agreement belongs to this case in terms of the acquisition practices of the collateral security (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu1077, Nov. 27, 190).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant bank established the above-mentioned mortgage contract on March 14, 198 with the non-party 1, 190,000 won or 150,000 won, and the non-party 1,00,000 won prior to the debtor's debt (hereinafter "Dongsan"), and agreed to all the above-mentioned debt obligations within the scope of 00,000 won, 90,000 won and 90,000 won and 90,000 won and 90,000 won and 90,000 won and 9,000,000 won and 9,000 won and 10,000 won and 9,000 won and 10,000 won and 10,000 won and 30,000 won and 9,00,000 won and 9,000 won and 9,00,00 won and 9,0.

In addition, while the defendant bank, which was additionally established on September 9, 198 with respect to factory buildings, etc. owned by the above Dongsan Industrial Complex, did not include the instant real estate in the joint collateral; it did not include the instant real estate in the joint collateral; it set up the joint collateral No. 130 million won with respect to the instant real estate after 2 years from the establishment of the instant joint collateral security; or it did not lend 100,000,000 won with respect to the said real estate to the above Dongsan Industrial Complex; or while selling the instant real estate to the plaintiff, the secured collateral obligation of the instant joint collateral was only a loan obligation on March 18, 198, because the said obligation was repaid and it was promised to cancel the instant collateral security obligation on March 18, 198, such circumstance alone is insufficient to deem that the instant obligation is limited to the loan obligation on March 18, 198.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)