|
【Main Issues and Holdings】
[1] Method of interpreting a judicial act in a case where an objective meaning is not clearly ascertainable from the language and text declared by the parties concerned, and whether a judicial act has to be construed more rigorously if the substance of a judicial act asserted by one party causes a substantial impact on the rights and duties of the other party (affirmative)
[2] In a case where: (a) the terms and conditions of an export credit guarantee contract concluded between Public Corporation A and Incorporated Company B has a provision stating that “the Bank must examine a receivable arising from a credit guaranteed loan based on a credit guarantee relationship with reasonable care, as it does for a receivable not secured by a credit guarantee relationship, and strive to preserve the rights specified therein,” and that where the Bank was negligent in taking reasonable care in violation of the above provision, etc., Public Corporation A is exempt from the obligation to provide a guarantee; (b) Bank C gave a loan to Company B, an exporter, in the manner of negotiating an export account receivable, which is secured by a letter of export credit guarantee issued by Public Corporation A pursuant to the above export credit guarantee contract, and upon the occurrence of an accident insured by the guarantee, whereby Bank C did not receive payment for export from the importer, Bank C sought Public Corporation A’s discharge of obligation to provide a guarantee; and (c) Public Corporation A asserted exemption from the obligation to provide a guarantee, alleging Bank C’s violation of a duty to take reasonable care according to the above provision of the terms and conditions in the event of the negotiation of an export account receivable, the case holding that the above provision in the terms and conditions should be construed as stipulating a duty to prevent ex post facto losses, and found the judgment rendered by the lower court erroneous in terms of the application of legal doctrine by having considered the pertinent provision as stipulating a preemptive duty to take reasonable care and concluding that Public Corporation A was exempt from the obligation for guarantee following the violation of the above provision in the terms and conditions
|
