[1] Whether a guarantee agreement under which the guarantor of a continuous guarantee agreement guarantees an uncertain indemnity obligation to the guarantor by performing the guaranteed obligation constitutes a continuous guarantee agreement (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a guarantor of a continuous guarantee agreement whose guarantee limit is set has died, whether the heir succeeds to the status of the guarantor (affirmative)

[1] A guarantee agreement under which the guarantor of the so-called continuous guarantee agreement guarantees an uncertain indemnity obligation to the guarantor by performing the guaranteed obligation constitutes a continuous guarantee agreement.

[2] In the case of continuous guarantee agreement to which the guarantee limit is set, even if the guarantor died, the guarantee contract does not automatically terminate, and the inheritor shall be deemed to succeed to the status of the guarantor unless there are special circumstances.

[1] Article 428 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 428 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da10890 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 218), Supreme Court Decision 96Da27858 delivered on December 10, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 311), Supreme Court Decision 98Da11826 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1990) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu5367 delivered on February 10, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 796)

Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (formerly: Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.) (Attorney Choi Byung-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others (Law Firm Dongn General Law Office, Attorneys Choi Hyun-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 98Na12642, 12659 delivered on February 26, 199

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. The so-called continuous guarantee agreement’s guarantee agreement under which the guarantor of the so-called continuous guarantee agreement guarantees the guarantor’s obligation for uncertain indemnity upon the fulfillment of the guaranteed obligation constitutes a continuous guarantee agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da11826, Jun. 26, 1998). However, in the case of continuous guarantee agreement with the guarantee limit, even if the guarantor died, the guarantee agreement does not terminate as a matter of course, and barring any special circumstance, the inheritor succeeds to the status of the guarantor (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu5367, Feb. 10, 1998).

According to the facts found by the court below in this case, on March 30, 1992, the plaintiff and the insured entered into a guarantee insurance contract between the plaintiff on March 30, 1992 to guarantee the obligation of lease fees, etc. under the lease contract of this case, which was entered into with Japan Lease Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Japan Lease"), with the plaintiff on March 10, 1992. The non-party entered into a guarantee contract between the plaintiff and the insured on the same day, with the insurance period of KRW 200 million, and five years from the issuance date of the certificate of the receipt of the lease. The non-party entered into a joint and several guarantee contract between the plaintiff and the non-party on the same day to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount to the plaintiff, and the non-party was deceased on February 10, 1993 and the representative director who entered into the guarantee contract of the plaintiff and the non-party's death on the part of the non-party's joint and several surety relationship after the death of the non-party.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, or omission of judgment, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

2. The argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that the Defendants acquired the right of rescission on the above guarantee contract or the above guarantee contract should be deemed to have been terminated naturally due to the death of the Nonparty is a new argument that did not exist in the court below, and cannot be seen as such in this case. Thus, it is proper that the court below rejected the Defendants' assertion that the Plaintiff sold the leased goods at an unfairly salt price to recover the claim for reimbursement of the amount of reimbursement against Japan-U.S.C., and rejected the Defendants' assertion that the scope of the guaranteed obligation has been expanded as stated in its holding, and there is no violation of the rules

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)