205Da30702 Return of unjust enrichment

Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation

Attorney Jeong-nam et al., Counsel for the defendant

Korea Exchange Bank, Inc.

Law Firm Han-chul, Attorney Han-soo

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004424983 Decided April 22, 2005

December 13, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

person who has a legitimate interest in payment on behalf of the debtor shall pay part of the

In doing so, within the scope of the amount of performance performed by the subrogated, the obligee acquires the rights to claim and security held by the previous obligee. In this case, the obligee has preferential rights to payment based on the security right against a part of the subrogated person. However, it can only be determined otherwise by an agreement between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu1797, Sept. 27, 198; 2001Da2426, Jun. 25, 2004). Meanwhile, the content of the ordinary terms and conditions of transaction should be interpreted objectively and uniformly based on the possibility of average customer understanding without considering the intent or specific circumstances of the parties to the contract. If it is not clear or doubtful of the content of the terms and conditions in terms of customer protection, it should be interpreted to be favorable to the customer who prepared the terms and conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da20752, Oct. 23, 198; 2005Da325, Oct. 28, 2005).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and evidence, the amount collected after the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident falls under the collection amount of each subparagraph of Article 8 (1) of the terms and conditions of this case and is appropriated first for the repayment of the guaranteed loan after the occurrence of the credit guarantee accident. It can be appropriated first for the guaranteed loan if the loan is made in excess of the estimated amount of the loan. The amount recovered by the defendant after the performance of the guaranteed obligation of the plaintiff can be appropriated first for the excess portion. The amount recovered by the defendant, the obligee, who is the obligee, should be appropriated for the full repayment of the obligation of the defendant: Provided, That only the "direct collateral for the guaranteed loan" and "security related to the guaranteed loan" are excluded from the obligee's preferential right of payment, and the "security directly secured loan" under the proviso of Article 13 of the terms and conditions of this case, which is provided by the defendant to the obligee prior to the performance of the guaranteed obligation of the obligee, and it is justified for the court below to interpret the terms and conditions of this case as the secured obligation of the secured loan of this case.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of Article 13 of the Clause of this case.

There is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interpretation of disposal documents, or incomplete deliberation in relation to the meaning of "security related to the floating loan." The argument in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Kim Ji-hyung of the District Court

Justices Lee Jae-chul