[1] Where a third party who had his name used as a primary debtor after obtaining a loan from a financial institution bears the duty of indemnity as a primary debtor against a joint and several surety or a surety to secure another's property

[2] The case where the principal obligor in the form of a joint guarantor bears the liability of indemnity as a joint guarantor

[1] Where a third party in obtaining a loan from a financial institution allows the financial institution to use his/her name, regardless of whether he/she is liable as a principal debtor with respect to the financial institution which is the creditor, as a matter of course, the joint and several sureties who performed joint and several sureties's liability as a principal debtor cannot be deemed liable for compensation as a matter of course for the joint and several sureties who performed the joint and several sureties's liability as a principal debtor, regardless of whether he/she is liable as a principal debtor. The joint and several sureties has guaranteed the third party's belief that the third party is the principal debtor, or fulfilled his/her guarantee liability. As such, the third party bears the full liability as a principal debtor for the joint and several sureties

[2] Where the type primary debtor can be deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the real primary debtor, or where it has implicitly been understood that he/she shall jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the repayment of the actual primary debtor's debt in an internal relationship between the principal debtor and the joint and several sureties, the form primary debtor shall bear the liability of indemnity among the joint and several sureties in accordance with the legal principles of the exercise of the right to indemnity among the joint and several sureties. However, in cases where a special agreement exists between the type primary debtor and the joint and several sureties that only the joint and several sureties shall bear the liability of indemnity, and the form primary debtor shall not bear the obligation of indemnity against the joint and several sureties.

[1] Articles 341, 370, 425, and 441 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 425, 441, and 428(2) of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da22451 delivered on October 22, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 2408) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da47631 Delivered on December 10, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 347) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089 Delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1011)

Korea

E.S. C. C.C. (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na10042 decided September 18, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to whether the principal obligor has an obligation to demand indemnity

A. Where a third party in obtaining a loan from a financial institution allows the financial institution to use his name, regardless of whether he is liable as a principal debtor with respect to the financial institution which is the creditor, as a matter of course, the joint and several sureties who performed joint and several sureties's liability as a principal debtor cannot be held liable for compensation with respect to the joint and several sureties who performed the joint and several sureties's liability as a principal debtor, regardless of whether he is liable as a principal debtor. The joint and several sureties, as a matter of course, guaranteed the third party's belief that he is the principal debtor, performed the guarantee liability or performed the guarantee liability. In such a case, the third party bears the full liability for the joint and several sureties as a principal debtor only in a case where the third party is responsible for the reason attributable to the third party and it seems reasonable to bear the responsibility for the third party (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da22451, Oct. 22, 199; 202Da47631, Dec. 10, 2002

원심은 그 채용 증거들을 종합하여, 동신제약 주식회사(이하 ‘동신제약’이라 한다)는 1998. 1. 초순경부터 주식회사 평화은행(이하 ‘평화은행’이라 한다)으로부터 46억여 원, 1998. 2. 3.경부터 한외종합금융 주식회사(이하 ‘한외종금’이라 한다)로부터 128억여 원 등 합계 174억여 원을 어음할인 등의 방법으로 대출받아(이하 ‘이 사건 대출’이라 한다) 이를 동신레저산업 주식회사(이하 ‘동신레저’라 한다)에 지급한 사실, 동원산업개발 주식회사(이하 ‘동원산업’이라 한다)는 이 사건 대출금채무를 위한 담보로 1998. 1. 9. 동원산업 소유의 서울 강남구 대치동 944, 944-1 및 그 지상 건물(이하 위 대지 및 건물을 합하여 ‘동원 제2빌딩’이라 한다)에 관하여 평화은행 앞으로 채권최고액 60억 원, 채무자 동신제약의 근저당권설정등기를, 1998. 1. 21. 동원산업 소유의 서울 강남구 대치동 946-12, 13, 14 및 그 지상 건물(이하 위 대지 및 건물을 합하여 ‘동원 제1빌딩’이라 하고, 동원 제1, 2빌딩을 합하여 ‘이 사건 빌딩’이라 한다)에 관하여 한외종금 앞으로 채권최고액 141억 원, 채무자 동신제약의 근저당권설정등기를 각 마쳐 준 사실, 동신제약은 1998. 8. 27.경 최종적으로 부도가 났는데, 이후 동원 제1빌딩에 관하여 1998. 10. 27. 개시된 경매절차에서 한외종금은 2000. 5. 26. 127억 60,623,144원을 배당받았고, 동원 제2빌딩에 관하여 1999. 9. 28. 개시된 경매절차에서 평화은행은 2000. 11. 24. 60억 원을 배당받은 사실, 한편 동신제약, 동원산업, 동신레저(이하 ‘3사’라 한다)는 소외 1이 사실상 그 주식 전부를 소유하거나 상당 부분을 소유하면서 함께 경영하던 계열회사였는데, 이 사건 대출 당시 동신제약의 대표이사이던 소외 1은 이 사건 대출 직전인 1997. 12. 31. 기준으로 동신제약의 주식 12.99%를 보유한 최대주주였고, 이 사건 대출 당시 동원산업의 대표이사는 소외 5로서, 동원산업의 주식은 소외 1을 비롯한 소외 2 등이 나누어 보유하고 있었으나, 소외 1을 제외한 나머지 사람들은 소외 1로부터 명의신탁을 받은 명목상의 주주에 불과하였고 소외 1이 동원산업을 사실상 개인기업으로 운영한 사실, 이 사건 대출 당시 동신레저의 대표이사이던 소외 1은 동신레저의 주식 전부를 아들인 소외 3, 4 명의로 보유하면서 사실상 개인기업으로 운영한 사실, 소외 1은 1996. 3. 12. 동신레저를 설립하여 골프장 공사를 진행하던 중 1997. 11.경 촉발된 국제금융위기상황(소위 IMF 사태)으로 인하여 위 공사에 대한 자금조달이 어렵게 되자, 자신의 개인기업과 마찬가지이던 동신레저 또는 동원산업 명의로 금융기관으로부터 대출을 받아 골프장 공사를 계속하고자 하였으나, 이 사건 빌딩 임대업 이외에 특별한 사업 활동이 없는 동원산업이나 골프장 운영업을 목적으로 하는 동신레저의 명의로는 대출을 받을 수가 없었던 사실, 소외 1은 3사 중 유일하게 제조업을 영위하는 상장회사인 동신제약의 명의로 한외종금 및 평화은행으로부터 이 사건 대출을 받으면서, 동원산업 소유의 이 사건 빌딩을 담보로 제공하게 된 사실, 한외종금으로부터의 대출은 대부분 동신레저가 발행한 어음을 할인하는 방식을 통하여 이루어졌는데, 동신제약을 통하여 동신레저에게 지급하는 방식을 취하지 않고 한외종금이 곧바로 동신레저에게 지급하였으며, 동신레저 역시 동신제약을 통하지 않고 직접 한외종금에게 대출금을 결제하는 한편, 어음할인대출의 이자도 한외종금에 직접 지급한 사실, 나아가 한외종금이 동신레저에 직접 지급한 대출금은, 동신레저의 서울은행 대치지점 보통예금 계좌에 입금되어 동신레저의 사업자금으로 사용되거나, 보통예금 계좌를 거치지 아니하고 한외종금이나 피고 회사에 대한 동신레저의 차입금을 상환하거나 동신제약에 자금을 대여하는 데에 사용된 사실, 한편 소외 1은 1998. 10. 1. 소외 6과 사이에 소외 1이 실질적으로 소유하던 동신제약 및 동원산업의 주식을 모두 소외 6에게 매도하는 계약을 체결하였는데, 소외 6은 위 주식매매계약 당시 동신제약의 동신레저에 대한 대여금채권의 담보로서의 외관을 지니고 있던 동신레저 발행의 골프회원권을 소외 1 개인에게 반환하기로 하고, 이 사건 대출금채무에 대하여 개인적으로 보증을 하고 있던 소외 1의 채무를 동원산업의 주식을 전부 인수하는 자신의 부담으로 해소해 주기로 약정한 사실 등 그 판시와 같은 사실들을 인정한 다음, 위 인정 사실에 나타난 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 이 사건 대출은 동신레저의 필요에 의하여 이루어진 것으로서 동신제약은 동신레저의 부탁에 의하여 아무런 대가 없이 이 사건 대출의 주채무자가 되었고, 동원산업으로서도 이러한 사정을 모두 알면서 동신레저가 실질적인 주채무자라고 믿고 물상보증을 하였다고 볼 것이므로 동신제약은 이 사건 대출에 있어서 단순히 그 명의만을 빌려준 형식상의 주채무자에 불과하고, 따라서 동신제약은 채권자에 대한 관계에 있어서 주채무자로서 대출금채무를 부담하는지 여부는 별론으로 하더라도, 물상보증인인 동원산업에 대한 관계에 있어서는 주채무자로서의 구상의무를 부담한다고 할 수는 없다고 판단하였다.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right of indemnity between the principal obligor and the surety in the form of violation of the rules of evidence or as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Furthermore, the court below rejected the Plaintiff's assertion that the above new drugs were sold to the above new drugs as collateral of 26.7 billion won, including the loans of this case from the date of the bankruptcy of the above new drugs, and that the above new drugs were sold to the above new drugs as collateral of 15.5 billion won, and that the audit report of the new drugs also confirmed the funds provided for the new drugs as short-term loans. Thus, the above new drugs were sold to the above new drugs as real principal debtor in the loan of this case. The court below rejected the Plaintiff's claim that the above new drugs were sold to the above new drugs of this case since the above new drugs were sold to the above new drugs of this case 0.7 billion won since the above new drugs were sold to the above new drugs of this case, it did not seem that the above new drugs were sold to the above new drugs of this case since the above new drugs were sold to the above new drugs of this case 10.7 billion won or more per 10.7 billion won per each time since the above new drugs were sold to the above new drugs of this case of this case.

C. On the other hand, the facts acknowledged in the judgment of related criminal case are important evidence in the civil trial unless there are special circumstances, but if it is acknowledged that it is difficult to adopt the factual judgment of the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, it may be rejected. Furthermore, the conviction in the criminal trial means that there is a proof that the judge has a conviction to the extent that the judge would exclude a reasonable doubt from the facts charged, while the judgment of innocence means that there is no such proof, and it does not mean that the non-existence of facts charged is proven (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da25368, Sept. 8, 1998; 2006Da27055, Sept. 14, 2006, etc.).

In a criminal case against the non-party 6, the court below held that the result of the above criminal case cannot be invoked as it is in this case since it appears that the non-party 6 gave up the above claim for indemnity after the fact that there is a claim for indemnity against the co-ordination of the mobilization industry, and that the non-party 6 gave up the above claim for indemnity, investigation, examination of evidence, and assertion were made, and as in this case, there is no clear deliberation as to whether the co-ordination is liable for indemnity against the mobilization industry in the internal relationship of the non-party 3 as in the above case. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules

2. As to whether a joint and several surety has a duty of indemnity

In cases where the principal debtor in form is deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the principal debtor in form, or where the understanding that the principal debtor's debt is jointly and severally guaranteed in an internal relationship between the principal debtor and the joint and several sureties exists implicitly, the principal debtor in form shall be liable for the joint guarantor's liability for indemnity in accordance with the legal doctrine on the exercise of the right to indemnity among the joint guarantors (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da22451, Oct. 22, 1999; 2002Da47631, Dec. 10, 2002; 2002Da47631, Dec. 10, 2002). However, in cases where a special agreement between the principal debtor and the joint and several sureties in form that the principal debtor will not bear the liability, or where there exists any explicit or implied understanding on such purport, the principal debtor in form shall not bear any liability for indemnity against the joint and several sureties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 207Da29789, Mar. 13, 20198

The court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in its reasoning, found that the new drugs and the mobilization industry in this case used sufficient physical collateral for the mobilization industry, and judged that there is no problem of repayment of a national loan due to the execution of the above collateral even if the mobilization industry failed to repay the loan. While the mobilization industry has the ability to bear losses due to the financial assistance to the new leisure industry, although the new drugs had not incurred losses due to the loans in this case, it had already been in excess of the obligation, and Nonparty 1 had personal guarantee of the principal obligation and the guaranteed obligation of the new drugs, including the loans in this case. Nonparty 1 appears to have intended to pay a final loan through the exercise of the security right to the building in this case where the loans for the new leisure industry have not been repaid at will, in full view of all the circumstances such as the fact that the special agreement on such losses seems to have been confirmed to have been concluded at the time of the stock sale contract between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 6, the court below determined that the new drugs industry was not obligated to pay an explicit obligation or indemnity between the new industry.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to a bona fide third party in the case of joint and several liability or false declaration of agreement of the formal principal debtor, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)