根保證에 관한 硏究

Abstract

The "Kun" Guaranty, which guarantees unspecified, multiple obligations, is frequently utilized in both commercial and non-commercial circles. Despite the fact that the validity of the "Kun" Guaranty is generally recognized by the most commentators and the courts, the underlying concept cannot be clearly defined due to the lack of a specific provision in the Civil Code, and because also there are divisions in the opinions of commentators and court decisions as to the concrete contents thereof. Due to its peculiar characteristics, the "Kun" Guaranty covers a broad range of guarantor's obligations. There is on-going argument as to the validity of such a Comprehensive " Kun" Guaranty. However, the theory of limited validity, which recognizes the validity of a "Kun" Guaranty under which the guarantor's liability is effectively Limited, has become widely accepted. The Limitation of Liability in the "Kun" Guaranty is to protect the guarantors. The methods for such protection include the limitation on the amount of the actual guaranty or affording a termination right to the guarantor. The purpose of this article is to suggest the basis, reasons and standard for limiting the guarantor's lliability in a "Kun" Guaranty, focusing on· the method of limiting the actual amount for which the guarantor is liable. The limitation on the guarantor's maximum liability, which is based on the principle of the good faith, is examined with emphasis on the court decisions , after first being classified into the following types: ⅰ) limitation depending on the method of transaction ; ⅱ) limitation when "Kun" Guaranty is combined with hypothecation on the collateral; ⅲ) limitation according to guarantor's motive: and ⅳ) limitation based on other reasons. Limitation based on such types will always be recognized and should be more widely recognized except where the intent of the parties concerned and specific facts show special circumstances. The termination right is briefly examined after classifying it into voluntary termination right and special termination right. However, I expect that, along with a gradual increase in bargain-ing power on the guarantor's side, the termination right will be more frequently used than limiting the amount of the guarantor's maximum liability. I believe the theory for granting termination right will be systemized in the near future. Since the court plays vital role in limiting the scope of the guarantor's liability "Kun" Guaranty, it is advisable that clear reasons and standards for limiting the guarantor's liability should be established through accumulation of reason able court decisions, and provisions concerning the limited "Kun" Guaranty, Comprehensive "Kun" Guaranty and the termination right should be incorporated in the Civil Code.;根保證은 繼續的債權關係에서 발생하는 不特定多數의 債務를 保證하는 것으로, 一般去來界에서 많이 이용되고 있고, 學說, 判例도 대체로 그 有效性을 認定하고는 있지만, 民法上 明文의 規定이 없어 槪念上 混亂이 있고, 그 具體的인 內容에 대해서도 學說, 判例上 見解의 對立이 있다. 根保證은 그 特性으로 인하여 保證責任의 範圍가 광범위하고, 그중에서도 包括根保證에 대해서는 有效性與否에 대하여 論議가 있지만, 保證責任을 制限할 수 있는 한 有效하다는 制限的有效說이 一般的인 見解이다. 이러한 見解에 따른 根保證의 責任制限은 根保證人을 保護하기 위한 것으로, 그 方法에는 保證限度額制限, 解止權의 認定 등이 있다. 이 硏究는 保證限度額制限方法을 중심으로 하여 根保證의 責任制限 根據와 事由 및 基準을 提示하는 것을 目的으로 하고 있다. 保證限度額制限은 信義則을 根據로 하고, 判例를 중심으로, 去來方法에 따른 制限, 物上保證과 根保證의 倂用인 때의 制限, 保證動機에 따른 制限, 기타 事由에 따른 制限으로 類型化하여 고찰하였다. 이러한 類型에 따른 制限은, 當事者의 意思 및 具體的인 事實關係에서 特別한 事情이 있는 경우를 除外하고는, 앞으로도 계속 認定될 것이며, 더욱 더 積極的으로 認定되어야 한다고 본다. 解止權의 認定은 任意解止權과 特別解止權으로 分類하여 간단히 고찰하였지만, 保證人의 地位强化와 더불어, 責任制限의 方法은 限度額制限方法보다는 解止權의 認定方法이 더 많이 利用될 것이며, 이에 따른 理論的 體系化도 이루어질 것이라고 본다. 根保證의 責任制限에서는 法院의 역할이 가장 중요하므로, 合理的인 判決의 集積을 통하여 明確한 事由 및 基準이 設定되어야 하고, 民法에 限定根保證, 包括根保證, 解止權의 根據를 規定하는 것이 바람직 할 것이다.