Where a director of a company has entered into an overdue guarantee contract with the bank for the company, the scope of joint and several liability of the director

Since a director of a company was in the position of director, a joint and several guarantee was made for the company's obligations arising from continuous transactions under the Bank Loan Regulations, and if the bank newly received a joint and several guarantee for the company's directors, etc. who were employed at the time of the transaction at each time, it shall be deemed that the guarantor is responsible only for the company's obligations arising out of the company's tenure of office as director.

Articles 428 and 429 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu789 Decided April 28, 1987

Cho Heung Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2630 Decided January 27, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since a director of a company was in the position of its director, joint and several suretiess were made for the company's obligations arising from continuous transactions under the Bank Loan Regulations, and if the bank newly received joint and several suretiess by the directors, etc. of the company employed at the time of the transaction at each time, the bank and the director should be deemed to be aimed at ensuring that the guarantor bears only the liabilities incurred during the company's term of office as director (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu789, Apr. 28, 1987)

The judgment of the court below, on its reasoning, established a comprehensive bank transaction agreement between the plaintiff on June 13, 1979 and the non-party company as a joint guarantor and the defendant, who is a director of the company, was the joint guarantor of the company. On October 30, 1979, the non-party company borrowed gold KRW 50,000 from the plaintiff on February 16, 1981, the non-party company established a new comprehensive bank transaction agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party company's directors, other than the defendant, as joint guarantor, and provided only those of the non-party company's directors as the endorser of the promissory note issued by the company and delivered them to the plaintiff. In the above purport, the defendant's joint and several guarantee agreement of this case was implicitly terminated pursuant to a new bank transaction agreement on February 16, 1981.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to joint and several guarantee contracts under continuous transactional relationship.

In addition, such an interpretation cannot be said to be contrary to the practices of banking transactions or the good faith principle.

The assertion is groundless.

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)