1. On the first ground for appeal:

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records and evidence, the court below is justified in holding that the non-party 1 is the director of the golf course site site of the defendant company in this case who was delegated by the defendant company to the matters related to the above construction work, and that the defendant company's act of guaranteeing the restoration work of this case and the obligation to compensate for damages in the event of non-performance of the restoration work in this case on September 28, 1990 belongs to the matters related to the above construction work of the defendant company as the smooth implementation of the construction work, and there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, the incomplete hearing, or the legal principles as to Article 15 of the Commercial Act. There is no ground to discuss this issue.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 company was to construct a golf course at approximately 640,00 square meters of forest land owned by the non-party 1 company at early 190, and the non-party 1 company ordered the non-party 1 company to execute the above construction works at the general construction company. The non-party 2 company and the defendant company constructed a golf course entry road to the non-party 9 without the plaintiff's consent ( Address 2 omitted) adjacent to the above golf course site while conducting the above construction works at the above golf course. The above construction works at the non-party 1 company was damaged by the non-party 9 company's non-party 9 company's failure to perform the above construction works at the above time, and the company did not perform the above construction works at the above time under the agreement for the non-party 1 company's restoration to its original state. The court determined that the non-party 9 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 2 and the non-party 3 company's restoration to its original state.

However, according to the records, the above non-party company submitted each letter to the plaintiff on September 28, 1990, and the contents of the letter are as follows: "When the non-party company newly establishes a golf course in the vicinity of the plaintiff's forest land, it will cover part of the forest land owned by it without permission (600 square meters) at the same time for the construction of the new road, and as a result, the landscape of the above forest land is permitted to be closed, and the passage is obstructed and it is impossible to do so. The above non-party company will complete the construction of the road without permission for its restoration to its original state by not later than the end of October 1991, and to guarantee the above matters, it will be recognized that the non-party company failed to perform its duty to guarantee the plaintiff's obligation to restore the road to its original state to its original state to its original state to its original state to its original state to its original state to its original state to its original state to the non-party 1 (the above non-party 1) without any claim for damages from its representative director."

The guarantor is liable to guarantee the liability for damages to be borne by the debtor due to the non-performance of the obligation. Therefore, the defendant, the guarantor, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the non-party company's nonperformance of the obligation to restore to its original state. However, in principle, the obligation of the guarantor is not extended or aggravated due to a legal act performed by the principal debtor after the establishment of the guarantee contract. Thus, even if the amount of damages for the non-performance of the above duty to restore was determined without the defendant's involvement in the scope of damages caused by an agreement between the non-party company and the creditor, the guarantor, even if the amount of damages for the non-performance of the duty to restore is determined without the defendant's involvement, the defendant

Therefore, the court below determined whether the actual amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the non-party company's failure to perform the duty to restore the above amount, and accordingly, the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim of this case should be determined. However, the above guarantee liability of the defendant is determined to the effect that all the obligations of the non-party company and the plaintiff's estimated amount of damages determined by the agreement are included in all the obligations of the amount of damages determined by the agreement. It cannot be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the guarantee liability, which

There is reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)