In the case of the principal obligor, whether there is a difference between the obligation of the guarantor and the obligation of the guarantor.

There is no ground to view that the former is more than the latter when the latter is the latter when the person performing the obligation is the primary debtor, the latter is more than the latter, and there is no difference between the latter and the latter.

Article 477 of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 84Na962 delivered on September 28, 1984

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the monthly credit card transaction limit of the above non-party, who is a general card member, was limited to 400,000 won under the credit card use contract concluded between the plaintiff and the non-party, and the defendant was liable for the joint guarantee of this case only within the scope of the above transaction limit. Therefore, the court below held that the defendant is liable only within the above limit. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, nor in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed debt, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Although the Defendant guaranteed, on behalf of the above Nonparty, up to KRW 100,000 of the monthly maximum credit transaction amount of 400,000,000 from the Plaintiff of Dong in addition to the monthly maximum limit of 400,000,000 won for credit transaction by Dong in the credit card transaction, even if the Defendant led to the confession as in the lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not have received cash loans from the above Nonparty in the instant case. Therefore, there is no illegality in the measure that the lower court recognized the monthly maximum credit transaction amount of KRW 400,000,000 except for the part regarding the above cash loans.

The contents of the above debt guaranteed by the defendant for the above non-party are to guarantee the limit of KRW 400,000 per month only for the month in which the above non-party's credit transaction obligation occurred, and it is natural that there is no room to guarantee the above non-party's credit transaction liability for the month in which the above non-party's credit transaction liability occurred. Thus, the court below is just in holding that the defendant is liable only for the period from March 3, 1983 to May of the same year, and there is no violation of the law of incomplete reasoning, non-

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above non-party's obligation arising from credit transaction by using the above bank credit card was KRW 147,408 on March 3, 1983; KRW 1,001,797 on April of the same year; and KRW 2,495,069 on May of the same year; among them, the scope of the defendant's obligation to pay is KRW 147,408 on March 3, 1983; KRW 400,00 on April 1 of the same year; KRW 400,400 on May 2 of the same year; and the above non-party's obligation to pay KRW 60,000 on June 1 through July 22 of the same year, 1983 was fully appropriated for the repayment of the above obligation to the non-party. Thus, the court below acknowledged that the above non-party's obligation to pay the remainder of the above obligation to the non-party was fully discharged between the above parties.

However, in the case where the person performing the obligation is the principal obligor, there is no ground to view that there is no difference between the former and the latter as the latter, and if there is no difference between the latter and the latter as the latter, it shall be reasonable to view that there is no difference between the latter and the latter as the latter, and if the interest of the repayment is the same, the amount of the repayment shall be appropriated for the repayment of the obligation which first comes due or is to come first (Article 477,

Unlike the above opinion of the court below, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the payment of the above non-party's payment of the above non-party's payment of the above non-party's payment within the scope of the guarantee. This point is with merit.

(3) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)