The part against Defendant C is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Eastern District Court.

1. As to Defendant C’s ground of appeal

A. Even if a promissory note was issued or endorsed on a promissory note to secure a specific person’s obligation, such circumstance alone alone alone does not lead to the conclusion of a civil guarantee agreement between the issuer or endorser of the promissory note and the obligee, and the obligee also had the intent to demand that the obligee bear the civil guarantee liability for the obligations arising from the issuance or endorsement of the promissory note. The issuer or endorser of the promissory note also issued or endorsed the promissory note in response to the obligee’s intent and the content of the obligation. In other words, it can be deemed that a guarantee agreement under the civil law was established between the issuer or endorser of the promissory note and the obligee.

The issue of whether a bill has been granted credit in the form of a civil guarantee shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the creditor, the debtor, and the drawer or endorser of the bill, the motive for issuing or endorsement of the bill, the negotiation process and method between the creditor, the actual profits arising from the issuance or endorsement of the bill, the circumstances before and after the issuance or endorsement of the bill, and the circumstances of transactional accounts, etc. In light of such various circumstances, if it is not recognized that the credit was granted in the form of a civil guarantee as a result of taking into account the various circumstances, the issuer or endorser of the bill shall, in principle, be liable to the holder of the bill, as a debtor on the bill, only the obligation under the bill, such as the payment

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29538 Decided September 24, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da17928 Decided September 7, 2007