[1] The purpose of the guarantee agreement between the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund and a financial institution is "the main collateral shall be acquired immediately after the completion of the facility concerned and the preferential termination of the guarantee"

[2] In the case of paragraph (1) above, the method of assessing the value of security exempted, and whether the termination of a credit guarantee contract is necessary as the base point of time for evaluation and the requirements for exemption (negative)

[1] In providing a credit guarantee between the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund and a financial institution, the purport of the credit guarantee agreement that a financial institution shall first terminate the credit guarantee if it acquires the principal security, and that if it violates such special agreement, it shall be exempted from the liability for the credit guarantee of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund by cancelling the credit guarantee agreement within the scope of secured value if the financial institution acquires the physical security of the facilities installed by the principal debtor as the facilities fund loaned to the principal debtor under the credit guarantee of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund.

[2] In the case of paragraph (1) above, the value of the security is not the appraised value of the security, but the amount applied by the collateral ratio under the loan regulations of a financial institution. In the event that the credit guarantee company approves the exemption equivalent to the value of the security of the principal, the value of the security should be determined at the time of the acquisition of the security, and it shall not be based on the time of the acquisition of the security thereafter. If the value of the security acquired by the financial institution exceeds the scope of the principal and liabilities of the loan guaranteed by the credit guarantee fund and its subordinate liabilities, the financial institution must terminate the entire credit guarantee of the credit guarantee fund, and even if the snow financial institution does not terminate the credit guarantee,

[1] Articles 105 and 428 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105 and 428 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Da2979 delivered on January 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 296) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da8150 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1958), Supreme Court Decision 95Da18734 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2980) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da20174 delivered on June 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2520) (Gong195Ha, 2520), Supreme Court Decision 96Da37619 delivered on December 10, 196 (Gong197, 325)

The Livestock Industry Cooperatives Federation (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

(Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 96Na16085 delivered on September 10, 1997

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff was not liable for the above 140,000 won per annum for the construction of non-party 1 corporation synthetic mortgage (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1 corporation") on June 18, 193 with a fixed amount of 100,000 won for the disposal facilities of by-products, and the due date for payment shall be 140,000 won for the construction of the above loan and its subordinate obligations to secure the principal and obligations of the above 140,000 won and the credit guarantee period shall be 9,000,000 won for the above construction of non-party 1 corporation's new collateral security facilities at the expense of 10,000 won for the above construction of non-party 1 corporation's new collateral security facilities at the 19,000,000 won for the above construction of non-party 1 corporation's new collateral security facilities at the expense of 16,000 won.

2. We examine the first ground for appeal.

In providing a credit guarantee like this case, the purport of the credit guarantee agreement stipulating that the Plaintiff shall first terminate the credit guarantee if the Plaintiff acquired the main collateral, and that if the Plaintiff violated such special agreement, it shall not be liable for all or part of the liability for the credit guarantee. First, the first day is that the Plaintiff should terminate the credit guarantee agreement within the scope of the value of the collateral acquired when the Plaintiff acquired the physical collateral with respect to the facilities established by the non-party company with the facility funds loaned by the non-party company under the Defendant’s credit guarantee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18734, Jul. 28, 1995). In this case, the value of the collateral is not the appraised value of the collateral, but the amount calculated by applying the collateral ratio according to the Plaintiff’s loan regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2979, Jan. 24, 198; 205Da196979, Apr. 16, 1997).

However, the court below judged that the defendant's credit guarantee liability still exists as to the whole scope of the principal and interest of the loan regardless of the plaintiff's acquisition of principal and interest regardless of the plaintiff's acquisition of principal and interest of the loan without considering the defendant's scope of exemption according to the value of the security of the state of this case acquired by the plaintiff. In this regard, there is an error of law in interpreting the special agreement clause,

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)