[1] The case holding that the provisions of a construction machinery sales agency contract which erases a seller who is only a commercial agent the warranty liability for the performance of unclaimed terms and conditions concerning the unclaimed purchase price are invalid under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts

[2] Whether a commercial agent entrusted with the sale of high-priced equipment by the manufacturer of construction machinery bears the duty of due care as a good manager to investigate the buyer's and the joint guarantor's ability to repay and secure security pursuant to Article 681 of the Civil Code (affirmative)

[1] The case holding that a construction machinery manufacturer's warranty liability for the total amount of installment payments to the selling company, which is a commercial agent, shall be null and void in accordance with the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, on the ground that a construction machinery manufacturer's liability for payment is transferred to the selling company without reasonable grounds, since the construction machinery manufacturer's liability for payment of the total amount of installment payments to the selling company, even though the seller received the sales price in advance from the leasing financial company and has the obligation to secure the bonds in their own name, is excessive than the amount of the commission received by the selling company.

[2] In the event that equipment is sold in a long-term installment, the establishment of a right to collateral security on the used equipment itself sold in a severe degree of depreciation does not fully guarantee the recovery of attempted claims. As such, a commercial agent entrusted by the manufacturer of construction machinery with the sale of high-priced heavy equipment of at least 200 million won by the manufacturer of construction machinery is obliged to exercise the duty of due care as a good manager by closely investigating the buyer’s and the joint guarantor’s ability to perform the obligation in accordance with the purport of Article 681 of the Civil Act at least when entering into the contract and securing adequate collateral if necessary

[1] Articles 6(1) and (2)1 and 7 subparag. 2 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Article 87 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 681 of the Civil Act, Article 87 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Yong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daewoo Heavy-Seoul Heavy Sales Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Yong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Namsan, Attorneys Ha Dong-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na54563, 54570 delivered on September 6, 2000

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals by the Plaintiffs (including the counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

1. The judgment on the appeal by the plaintiffs (including the counterclaim defendant; hereinafter the title on the counterclaim is omitted)

(1) Based on the evidence employed, the court below concluded a contract on product sales agent, A/S contract (hereinafter "the contract of this case") with the defendant on behalf of the defendant on April 1, 1996 on the condition that the defendant sold equipment among concrete pumps trucks produced by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff company and provided subsequent services (A/S) to its purchaser. In return, the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 concluded a contract on product sales agent, A/S service (hereinafter "the contract of this case") with the defendant on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on each of the real estate of this case owned by the above plaintiffs to secure all debts owed by the plaintiff company to the defendant in connection with the contract of this case. The plaintiff company concluded the contract of this case on behalf of the defendant from April 15, 1996 to April 30, 197, but the defendant was notified of the sales right after the contract of this case to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff company on July 19, 197.

Then, the court below acknowledged the facts of the plaintiff company's principal claim that the plaintiff company is obligated to pay 60,609,500 won less than the fees to be paid by the plaintiff company in accordance with the initial fee agreement. After finding out the facts of the judgment on the fee agreement by the evidence employed, the agreement between the plaintiff company and the defendant was changed from October 1, 1996, and the plaintiff company and the defendant sold at a higher rate of 10% (after October 1, 1996) or regional average discount rate (after February 1, 1997) as determined by the defendant company, the defendant paid 5% of the price actually sold by the plaintiff company as fees, and the plaintiff company sold at a lower rate of 10% or regional average discount rate of 20% as fees, and it did not accept the plaintiff company's claim from the plaintiff company for fact-finding with the above 300% discount rate or regional average discount rate of 30% more than the actual sales price of 30%, and it did not apply the above agreement to the plaintiff company's 3070.

(2) In addition, based on the above factual basis, the court below accepted the defendant's counterclaim at the same time recognizing the defendant's above obligation as the collateral obligation of each of the above collateral security, and at the same time accepted the defendant's counterclaim, the court below is just in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, etc., as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Judgment on the defendant's appeal

(1) According to the evidence employed by the court below, under the contract of this case, the company of this case must, in principle, observe the sale price and conditions set by the defendant when selling heavy equipment (Article 13(1)), and when the customer who purchased the equipment among the sales activities of the company of the plaintiff becomes unable to pay the purchase price, the company is liable for the payment of the purchase price to the defendant, and even if the contract of this case is terminated, the contract of this case was agreed to continuously bear the obligation to compensate for performance before the termination (Article 43), and the contract of this case was prepared in accordance with the contents of the standard contract set in advance by the defendant, and the contract of this case that imposes the obligation to compensate for the unpaid amount to the plaintiff company. The contract of this case was formed in advance by the defendant for the purpose of establishing the same kind of legal relation, which is unfairly unfavorable to the plaintiff company or transferred the risk that the defendant should bear, and thus, is null and void pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act or Article 7 subparagraph 2 of the same Act.

However, while the Commercial Act provides for the commission agent's warranty liability as stipulated in Article 105, the Commercial Act does not provide for such provision for the agent agent. Since the legal effect of the transactional act on consignment sale belongs only to the commission agent (trustee) and the principal cannot be in a direct legal relationship with the other party, it is necessary to protect the principal in consideration of the other party's demand for performance through the commission agent or the transfer of bonds from the commission agent to the other party. However, the legal effect of the transaction is that the agent's warranty liability should not be imposed on the agent who directly belongs to the principal. As acknowledged by the record, the price of equipment sold by the Plaintiff company is higher than 20 million won per unit, the Defendant is merely 5% of the total amount of equipment sold by the Plaintiff company's sales contract, and the Defendant, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff company's warranty liability is not only the amount of equipment sold to the Plaintiff company, but also the amount of equipment sold to the Plaintiff company prior to the expiration of the contract's warranty liability which the Defendant acquired from the buyer and the Plaintiff company's warranty liability is more than 24 months or48 months.

In light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the nature of the so-called Baler system and the legal principles as to the regulation of terms and conditions, which are a kind of commercial agent, and thus,

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant had an obligation to secure sufficient collateral to ensure the purchase price of equipment when concluding the instant contract with the Defendant. However, due to the Plaintiff Company’s negligence of fulfilling its obligation as an authorized person, the Defendant’s failure to conclude the instant contract, 24,450,236 won, such as remaining price, and 29 (Non-Party 2), incurred losses on the part of the Defendant regarding the transaction of 163,921,106 won, such as remaining price, etc., due to the Defendant’s failure to perform the duty to secure the purchase price of equipment. According to the instant contract, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim that the Defendant had an obligation to secure the purchase price of equipment for the Plaintiff Company’s purchase and sale of equipment with its own authority and responsibility, and that the Defendant had an obligation to secure the sale price of equipment for the Plaintiff Company’s purchase and sale of equipment with the Defendant’s consent to secure the sales price of equipment for the Plaintiff Company’s purchase and sale price of equipment for the Plaintiff Company’s purchase and sale price of equipment.

그러나 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정과 판단은 다음과 같은 이유로 수긍할 수 없다. ① 먼저 이 사건 계약에 의하면, 원고 회사는 제품을 판매 대리함에 있어서 피고가 정한 판매가격, 판매조건, 기타 판매 또는 영업에 관한 제반의 기준, 요령 및 절차를 준수하여야 하고(제13조 제1항), 원고 회사의 권한과 책임하에 피고의 협조를 얻어 채권확보ㆍ채권행사ㆍ담보의 설정 및 해지 등 제반 업무를 수행하되, 피고가 정하는 기준에 따라 피고 명의의 채권확보를 하여야 하며, 각종 채권확보책의 선택과 채권서류의 징구 및 채권확보의 실행 등의 사항도 역시 원고 회사의 권한 및 책임에 속하는 것인바(제19조 제1항, 제3항, 제4항), 기록에 의하면, 이러한 약정에 따라 원고 회사는 자기의 고유한 권한 및 책임 아래 매수인을 선정하면서 그 변제자력 등을 심사하고 각종 채권확보책을 선택하였으나, 피고에게 보고함에 있어서는 채권확보가 완료되지 않은 상태에서 그 개괄적인 내용만을 전산 입력하는 방식을 취하였고, 매수인이나 연대보증인의 변제자력을 구체적으로 확인할 수 있는 등기부등본 등 관련 서류는 원고 회사가 보관하였으며, 피고는 전산 입력 사항의 실체적 내용을 분기별로 사후 확인하였을 뿐인 사실을 알 수 있다. ② 또한, 피고가 원고 회사에게 1992. 4.경에 발행된 채권관리 실무지침(을 제15호증의 1, 2)을 교부하여 주었는지는 기록상 명백하지 않지만, 위 약정 내용에 의하면, 적어도 원고 회사가 피고 명의로 채권확보를 함에 있어서 적용하여야 하는 피고 소정의 기준이 존재하였던 사실을 알 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 특히 원고 회사의 과장으로서 피고와의 거래를 담당하였던 원심 증인 소외 3은 위 채권관리 실무지침을 본 일은 없지만 피고의 직원이 알려주어서 그 내용을 알고 있었다는 취지의 증언을 한 바도 있다. ③ 한편 피고의 위 채권관리 실무지침 등에 의하면, 이 사건과 같이 2억 원 이상의 중장비를 할부판매하면서 선수율이 현금 30% 미만인 경우에는 중기근저당권을 설정하는 외에 재산세 합계액이 미수채권액의 0.2% 이상인 보증인 3명 이상의 연대보증이 필요하고 부동산 근저당설정 등은 권장사항으로 되어 있는데, 피고가 원고 회사로 하여금 이러한 기준을 엄격하게 적용하도록 조치한 것으로 보이지는 않지만, 중장비를 장기간의 할부로 판매하는 경우에는 감가상각의 정도가 심하여 판매된 중장비 자체에 관한 근저당권 설정만으로는 미수채권의 회수가 충분히 담보되지 못하므로, 이와 같이 피고로부터 2억 원 이상의 고가 중장비 판매를 위임받은 대리상인 원고 회사로서는 적어도 민법 제681조 의 규정 취지에 따라 그 매수인과 연대보증인들의 변제자력을 면밀히 조사하여 계약을 체결함과 동시에 필요한 경우 충분한 담보를 확보함으로써 위임자인 피고의 이익을 해하지 않을 선량한 관리자의 주의의무를 부담한다 . ④ 그런데 원고 회사는 원심판결 별지 내역표 순번 16 거래와 관련하여, 1997. 1. 3. 소외 1에게 2억 4,750만 원의 중장비를 48개월 할부로 판매하기로 하는 계약(계약금 및 인도금 7,250만 원, 할부대금 합계 233,520,000원)을 체결하면서, 위 매매대금의 납입을 담보하기 위하여 위 중장비에 관하여 근저당설정등록을 하는 외에 소외 4를 위 채무에 대하여 연대보증하게 하였으나, 매수인인 위 소외 1은 그 당시 재산으로 서울 관악구 (주소 1 생략)연립 101호 57.92㎡를 소유하고 있을 뿐이었는데, 위 부동산에 관하여는 이미 채권최고액 7,200만 원인 근저당권설정등기가 마쳐져 있었을 뿐만 아니라 1996. 10. 30.자로 소외 삼성중공업 주식회사에 의하여 320,118,240원 및 225,856,800원의 각 채권의 보전을 위한 가압류등기가 마쳐져 있었으며, 연대보증인인 위 소외 4는 당시 재산으로 서울 관악구 (주소 2 생략)빌라 가동 3층 2호 67.59㎡를 소유하고 있을 뿐이었는데, 위 부동산에 관하여는 이미 채권최고액 4,800만 원 및 1,700만 원인 각 근저당권설정등기가 마쳐져 있었을 뿐만 아니라 1996. 10. 30.자로 위 삼성중공업 주식회사에 의하여 위 소외 1에 대한 것과 같은 채권의 보전을 위한 각 가압류등기가 마쳐져 있었다. 그 결과 위 소외 1은 위 계약금 및 인도금 중 32,500,000원만을 납부하고 할부대금도 1996. 12. 31. 미리 납부한 제1회 할부대금 4,865,000원 외에는 나머지 대금을 곧바로 연체하였으며, 이에 따라 피고가 위 중장비에 관하여 설정된 근저당권을 실행하였음에도 64,535,469원을 배당받는 데에 그쳤음에도 불구하고, 원고 회사는 1997. 7. 1. 사업운영권을 피고에게 반납할 때까지 적절한 조치도 취하지 아니하였다. ⑤ 또한, 원고 회사는 위 내역표 순번 29 거래와 관련하여, 1997. 4. 30. 소외 2에게 2억 4,750만 원의 중장비를 48개월 할부로 판매하기로 하는 계약(인도금으로 7,750만 원, 할부대금으로 합계 226,848,000원)을 체결하면서, 위 매매대금의 납입을 담보하기 위하여 위 중장비에 관하여 근저당설정등록을 하는 외에 소외 5, 소외 6을 위 채무에 대하여 각 연대보증하게 하였으나, 위 소외 5는 그 당시 재산으로 서울 동작구 (주소 3 생략) 대 130㎡와 그 지상에 지하 1층 지상 4층인 근린생활 시설 및 주택인 건물을 소유하고 있을 뿐이었는데, 위 각 부동산에 관하여는 이미 채권최고액 2억 6,000만 원, 6,500만 원, 4억 2,000만 원 및 1억 2,000만 원인 각 근저당권설정등기가 마쳐져 있었고, 위 소외 6은 당시 재산으로 서울 동작구 (주소 4 생략)아파트 3동 405호 84.99㎡를 소유하고 있을 뿐이었는데, 위 부동산에 관하여는 이미 채권최고액 1,950만 원, 6,000만 원, 3,900만 원, 720만 원 및 4,500만 원인 각 근저당권설정등기가 마쳐져 있었다. 그 결과 위 소외 2는 인도금으로 지급한 어음의 상당량을 부도내고 할부대금도 거의 납부하지 아니하여, 피고가 위 중장비에 관하여 설정된 근저당권을 실행하여 변제에 충당하였음에도 불구하고 인도금 중 원금 77,250,000원과 할부대금 원금 중 88,682,015원만이 회수되었을 뿐이다. ⑥ 사정이 이러하다면, 원고 회사로서는 위 각 거래와 관련하여 위임의 본지에 따른 선량한 관리자의 주의의무를 다하였다고는 도저히 볼 수 없고, 이로 말미암아 피고에게 확정적인 손해가 발생한 이상에는 이를 배상할 의무가 있다고 보아야 한다(다만, 피고의 과실을 참작하여 원고 회사가 배상할 손해액을 감액할 수 있음은 별론으로 한다).

Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the defendant's assertion on the liability for damages of the plaintiff company merely on the ground as seen earlier is groundless, and rejected this part of the defendant's counterclaim, and at the same time accepted the defendant's claim for cancellation of the right to collateral security against the plaintiff 1 and 2 on the condition that the above recognition is repaid only for the repayment of the obligation to pay after-sales service fees. In this regard, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duty of care of the commercial agent, who is the mandatory, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiffs' appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)