Whether a bank has extinguished an existing obligation by means of a new loan that is equivalent to a debtor's obligation to repay the existing obligation, and whether a new obligation arises (negative)

A bank's new loan of money corresponding to a debtor's debt constitutes a separate loan in formality. However, it cannot be deemed that the former debt is extinguished and a new debt has been incurred because it merely extends the maturity of the existing debt.

Articles 493 and 500 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1986, 449)

Park-Jin-Jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Han Han Bank Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na44086 delivered on June 19, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Examining the record, it cannot be said that there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the fact-finding of the court below. There is no reason to discuss.

With respect to the second ground:

In this case, the court below's decision is just that the defendant's new loan of money corresponding to the debt of the non-party 1, the debtor of the non-party 1, and appropriated for the repayment of the existing debt constitutes a separate loan, but in substance, it is nothing more than an extension of the repayment term of the existing debt (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1670 delivered on February 11, 1986), even though there is an indication that the balance is 0 "0" or "in full payment" to the loan ledger of the theory of lawsuit, it is not different because it is done so in the book processing, and in this case, it is not deemed that the old debt is extinguished and new debt has been incurred.

Therefore, there is no argument that there is an error of misunderstanding the legal principles of correction in the judgment of the court below in the opposite position.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)