A. Legal nature of substitute exchange

(b) In the case of substitution, whether the guarantor's liability to guarantee the existing obligation has ceased to exist; and

A. Although the so-called substitution, which performs an existing obligation by providing a new loan only formally without receiving actual funds, constitutes a separate loan, barring special circumstances, the legal nature of the existing obligation is merely an extension of the maturity of the existing obligation, and thus, it should be deemed a quasi-loan for consumption where the existing obligation still exists while maintaining its identity.

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the obligee and the surety agree to exempt the guarantor from the liability to guarantee the existing obligation, the liability to guarantee the existing obligation shall continue.

Articles 500 and 605 of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Da24281 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992,484). Supreme Court Decision 85Meu357 delivered on August 19, 1986 (Gong1986,1210), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu23271 Delivered on October 30, 1990 (Gong190,2413), Supreme Court Decision 91Da29828 delivered on December 10, 191 (Gong192,487)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 1, 201

Defendant Kim-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na21646 delivered on November 12, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion based on joint and several liability under the above agreement on December 31, 1991, on the ground that the plaintiff entered into a trade agreement with the non-party Daehan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party D Co., Ltd.") with the non-party D Co., Ltd. on the basis that the defendant did not have joint and several liability for the non-party company's obligations under the above agreement and that the expression agent liability for the above agreement is not recognized. Furthermore, the plaintiff's conjunctive joint and several liability for the payment of the bill at the time of signing the first agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party Co., Ltd. on July 24 of the same year (hereinafter referred to as the "the second agreement") and the defendant rejected the plaintiff's claim based on the above joint and several liability for payment with the non-party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party D Co. 2") on the ground that the payment of the bill was extinguished under the first agreement.

2. However, according to the records, the plaintiff entered into a discount agreement with the non-party company on May 25, 191, and established a mortgage on the non-party company's land and building 600,000 won on the same day and the same month 27th day of the same month. It borrowed the above amount at a discount of 8 bills (7.23 to 25th day of the same year) with 199,20,000 won with 10,000 won with 9,000 won with 190,000 won with 20,000 won with 9,000 won with 9,000 won with 9,000 won with 9,000 won with 9,000 won with 19,000 won with 9,000 won with 19,000 won with 9,000 won with 19,000 won with 196,00 won with 9,00 won with 9,06,04.

3. The court below held that the plaintiff, a mutual savings bank, could not conduct the business of independent loan, and only sell and purchase bills pursuant to the Short-Term Finance Business Act, and the defendant endorsed bills at discount in the meaning of joint and several sureties, and all of the bills have been settled, and thus the defendant guaranteed the above bill relations. However, the plaintiff's credit cooperative, a stock company established under the Mutual Credit Guarantee Act, listed the discount of bills as one of the businesses of the fraternity members or installments under Article 11 (1) 4 of the Act, and each of the contents of the standard regulation book (Evidence No. 6) and the transaction agreement on discount of bills in consideration of each of the above contents, it is difficult to see that the bill payer is only one form of loan, and in light of the fact that the above transaction agreement on discount of bills provides for the loan amount and the maturity period, it is difficult to see that the above agreement only prescribes the loan amount due to the bill discount within the limit of the amount due until the due date for payment. Furthermore, in light of the above agreement, it is difficult to view that the debtor is a joint and several surety under the above agreement.

4. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to guarantee the whole amount of the loan equivalent to the face value of the bill discounted by the plaintiff according to the first agreement. In addition, as seen earlier, the non-party company arranged that the discounted bill was settled only formally, and in fact, if the loan obligation is not repaid and the loan obligation is refunded to a new obligation, the liability to guarantee shall continue to exist, and it shall not be deemed that the loan obligation of the defendant guaranteed by the defendant is established by the substitution.

Therefore, in this case where the Defendant agreed to guarantee only the obligation of the Defendant’s endorsement on July 24, 191 through July 25, 191, and agreed to exempt the obligation of the surety in the case of a substitute redemption, or where there are no special circumstances to deem otherwise, the Defendant’s obligation of the surety in the above contract was extinguished as the obligation of the person related to the underlying obligation was limited to the relationship of the promissory note he endorsed and the settlement of the said bill was made, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the surety and the extinction of the obligation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and since the Defendant’s obligation of the surety was not actually repaid, the Defendant’s obligation of the surety was not extinguished. Thus, it cannot be viewed as pointing out the purport that the Defendant’s obligation of the surety was not extinguished.

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)