A. The guarantor's right to terminate the so-called continuous guarantee agreement with no fixed period;

B. The case holding that the above federation cannot terminate the above guarantee contract unilaterally on the ground that the principal debtor filed a lawsuit for damages against the union members of the taxi transportation business association, the guarantor, and that the termination of the guarantee contract for medical expenses in such a case is a practical guidelines and practice of the above federation

A. The so-called continuous guarantee agreement without a fixed period of time is not desirable under generally accepted social norms to have the guarantor maintain and maintain the guarantee agreement in a case where there are reasonable grounds to terminate the guarantee agreement as a guarantor, such as a failure to trust the principal debtor of the guarantor, etc.

B. The case holding that the above federation cannot terminate the above guarantee contract unilaterally on the ground that it is not desirable under the social norms to maintain and maintain the above guarantee contract on the ground that the above federation's business guidelines and practices have considerable reasons to terminate the above guarantee contract, even if the principal debtor filed a lawsuit for damages against the members of the Passenger Transport Business Association, which is the guarantor, after the medical fee guarantee contract.

(b)Article 428, Section 543 (a) of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 77Da2298 delivered on March 28, 1978 (Gong1978, 10756) (Gong10792 delivered on September 9, 1986)

○○ Hospital Maintenance Foundation (Attorney Kim Sung-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Na5425 delivered on January 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

The court below rejected the defendant's defense that the plaintiff consented to the termination of the contract of this case and agreed to not claim medical expenses after February 11, 1989 against the defendant. The court below's examination of the evidence and the evidence relations prepared by the court below as well as the evidence cited by the court below based on the records is justified and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as argued by the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the so-called continuing guarantee contract that guarantees future hospital treatment costs without fixing the period of time is not desirable under generally accepted social norms to have the guarantor maintain and maintain the guarantee contract if there are reasonable grounds to terminate the guarantee contract as the guarantor's trust to the principal debtor. Thus, the guarantor can unilaterally terminate the contract, except in special circumstances such as the other party's creditor's loss which is not implied in accordance with the principle of good faith due to the termination of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu792 delivered on September 9, 1989). However, as asserted in the theory of lawsuit, the non-party 1, the principal debtor after the contract of this case, filed a lawsuit against the defendant's union member, and the termination of the guarantee contract of medical treatment costs is equivalent to the defendant's practical guidelines and practices. Thus, even if the defendant's cancellation of the guarantee contract of this case is a considerable reason to terminate the guarantee contract of this case, it cannot be viewed that the defendant maintains the guarantee contract of this case as it is, and thus, the defendant cannot unilaterally terminate the guarantee contract of this case.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the aforementioned defense on the ground that the defendant, the main debtor of the medical expenses of this case, was financially capable of paying the medical expenses of this case and its execution is easy. Thus, the plaintiff's filing of the claim of this case against the defendant without claiming and executing the above medical expenses of this case against the above main debtor is unjustifiable. According to the macroficial Evidence, the above non-party 1, etc. received from the defendant on October 12, 1989 the amount of compensation agreement from the defendant on October 12, 1989. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to conclude that the above non-party 1 has the ability to pay the above medical expenses and its execution is easy, and there is no other evidence to support this. In light of the records, the court below's above measures are acceptable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right of defense of the guarantor's highest search right as argued by the plaintiff. The defendant was aware of the non-party 1's non-party 1's allegation and its execution.

3. 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.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)