[1] The method of interpreting the scope of secured obligation in a case where a written contract to establish a mortgage takes the form of a general transaction agreement printed in the same letter

[2] The case holding that unlike the terms and conditions of a mortgage contract, the scope of the secured debt is set up and the amount borrowed by the debtor and its incidental debt is included only in the amount borrowed by the debtor and it is not included in the debtor

[1] Even though a written contract to establish a right to collateral security takes the form of a general transaction agreement printed in the same word, if the authenticity is recognized as a disposal document, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, barring any special circumstance. However, if it is deemed reasonable to interpret the intent of the parties as the intent of the agreement only for a certain amount of obligation within a certain scope, unlike the terms and conditions of the contract, in light of all the circumstances such as the formation process and purpose of the contract, the amount of the secured obligation, the mutual relationship between the person who created the collateral security and the debtor and the creditor, it may be limited according

[2] The case holding that unlike the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract, the scope of the secured debt is set up and the amount borrowed by the debtor is included only in the amount borrowed by the debtor and its incidental debt, and it does not include the debtor'

[1] Articles 105, 357(1), and 360 of the Civil Act; Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Articles 105, 357(1), and 360 of the Civil Act; Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da27612 delivered on September 20, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3160), Supreme Court Decision 95Da2494 delivered on October 29, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3509), Supreme Court Decision 96Da9508 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1973), Supreme Court Decision 97Da22768 delivered on September 26, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3240)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dong-in Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Law Firm White, Attorney Yang Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na61526 delivered on May 6, 1999

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

1. The court below determined on May 2, 1996 that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 set up the right to collateral security (the subsequent maximum debt amount) 950 million won as to the real estate of this case owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 as the debtor, and that the non-party 1 loaned a amount of KRW 730 million as against the defendant. The written contract of this case is printed in the same letter, and it stated that all of the obligations of this case including bill loans, bill discount, credit transaction obligations, and guaranteed obligations owed by the debtor against the defendant are included in the scope of secured obligations. Meanwhile, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, as to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's joint and several debt amount of KRW 970 million as of February 29, 196, it rejected the plaintiff 200 million as the joint and several debt amount of KRW 970 million as of April 26, 1996, 975.

2. Although a written contract to establish a right to collateral security takes the form of a general transaction agreement printed in the same text, it is recognized as a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, the content of declaration of intent should be interpreted in accordance with the language and text of the contract. However, if it is deemed reasonable to interpret the intent of the parties as an agreement to guarantee only a certain amount of obligation within a certain scope, unlike the language and text of the contract, in light of all the circumstances such as the process and purpose of concluding the contract, the amount of secured obligation, the mutual relationship between the person who created the collateral security and the debtor and the creditor, etc., the scope of warranty liability may be limited according to the intent of the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da27612, Sept. 20,

However, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below in this case, although the defendant had the intent to secure the existing joint and several debt obligations of Nonparty 1 with the maximum amount of KRW 3,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won as the collateral of this case, it is extremely high that the plaintiff and Nonparty 1 set the maximum amount of debt of this case at the first order with respect to the real estate purchased at KRW 3,50,000,000,000,000,000,000 won as the collateral of KRW 1,730,000,000,000,000,000 won as the collateral of the loan of this case, it is consistent with the loan practices of financial institutions, and the defendant tried to set the maximum amount of debt of this case to KRW 1,730,000,000,000,000,00,000.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the scope of the secured obligation of Nonparty 1’s above loans of KRW 730 million and its incidental obligation cannot be limited. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the secured obligation of the right to collateral security, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the contract. The grounds of appeal assigning this error are with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)