[1] The scope of guarantee obligation under the Labor Guarantee Act that provides the guarantee limit amount

[2] Whether damages for delay caused by delay of the guaranteed obligation itself should be borne separately from the guarantee limit (affirmative), and the method of determining the rate of delay interest

[1] In accordance with the guarantee limit amount, the guarantee obligation includes both the principal obligation and its interest, penalty, damages, and all other principal obligation obligations incidental to the principal obligation within the limit of guarantee limit, unless there are any special circumstances.

[2] Since the guaranteed obligation is separate from the principal obligation, damages for delay of the guaranteed obligation itself bear separate expenses from the guarantee limit, and in case where there is no special agreement on the interest rate on delay of the guaranteed obligation, the interest rate on delay of the guaranteed obligation under the Commercial Act and the Civil Act depending on the transaction’s nature shall be applied. Although the agreed interest rate on the principal obligation is not applicable as a matter of course, if there is any special

[1] Articles 428 and 429 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 390, 428, and 429 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da4044 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2549) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da64639 delivered on March 23, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 750) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da1433 delivered on February 27, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 859)

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na39953 delivered on January 22, 1999

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of Seoul District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined on July 4, 1996 that the joint defendant 1 of the court of first instance borrowed 20,000,000 won per annum from the plaintiff on July 4, 1996 and July 4, 199. The defendant prepared a limited guarantee contract with the meaning that the guarantee limit for the above loan repayment obligation to the plaintiff 1 of the court of first instance is 24,00,000 won, without setting the guarantee limit, and that the joint defendant 1 of the court of first instance did not pay interest after October 22, 1997 to the plaintiff 10,000,000 won per annum from the above 10,000 won per annum 10,000,000 won per annum, and that the plaintiff's joint defendant 1 of the court of first instance should pay damages for delay of the principal to the plaintiff 1 of the court of first instance as of July 19, 197.

In light of the original guarantee amount, unless there are special circumstances, the guarantee obligation includes both the principal obligation and its interest, penalty, damages, and all other principal obligation incidental to the principal obligation within the limit of guarantee amount, and even if the statement of evidence No. 1-2 (including all the interest, damages for delay, and incidental obligation) adopted by the court below, Article 1 provides that "the guarantee limit (including all the interest, damages for delay, and all the incidental obligation) shall be 24,000,000 won." Thus, the defendant shall be liable for the guarantee including both the principal obligation and its interest and damages for delay within the limit of guarantee amount.

On the other hand, since the guaranteed obligation is separate from the principal obligation, damages for delay of the guaranteed obligation itself should be borne separately from the guarantee limit, and in this case, if there is no special agreement on the interest rate on delay of the guaranteed obligation, the interest rate on delay of the guaranteed obligation under the Commercial Act or the Civil Act depending on the transaction’s nature shall be applied. Although the agreed interest rate on the principal obligation is not applicable as a matter of course,

However, in the case of this case, upon considering Gap evidence No. 1-2 (refinite guarantee), the first head "if a bank changes the rate, calculation method, time and method of payment of interest, etc. and damages for delay corresponding to the number of days calculated on a one-day basis, it shall be acknowledged that each provision of the transaction agreement on the guaranteed obligation, which was separately submitted by the debtor, is applied to the fulfillment of the guaranteed obligation, and each of the following provisions shall be promised." Article 3 (2) of the evidence No. 2 (basic terms and conditions for credit transaction) provides that "if the debtor delays the performance of the obligation to the bank, the amount to be paid immediately shall be the rate set by the bank within the limit set by the Acts and subordinate statutes, and the damages for delay corresponding to the number of days calculated on a one-day basis shall be paid." Article 3 (3) provides that "if the bank changes the rate, calculation method, and method of payment of interest, etc., and the debtor changes the rate corresponding to the highest rate set by the Acts and subordinate statutes due to the change in financial situation or other considerable reasons, it shall be deemed as follows."

Nevertheless, the court below held that the total amount of the debt principal of Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance court at the time of November 4, 1997, which falls short of the guarantee limit, and the overdue interest until it is the guaranteed debt, and that there is no assertion or proof as to the agreement on the overdue interest rate of the guaranteed debt of this case without further examination. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of guarantee liability and the scope of delay damages, or by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)