1. As to Defendant 5’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. The obligee also intended to demand that the obligee be liable for civil guarantee 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 civil guarantee agreement has been established between the issuer or endorser of the promissory note and the obligee. Whether a credit was granted in the form of a civil guarantee is determined as 70 times as a result of the issuance or endorsement of the promissorysory note, 207 as a matter of principle, taking into account the following circumstances: (i) the issuer or endorser of the promissory note and the obligee and the endorser, together with the degree of the obligee’s actual credit or interest arising from the issuance or endorsement of the promissory note; (ii) the extent of payment of the promissory note and 207.

B. Based on evidence, the lower court: (a) decided on September 25, 200; (b) on September 2003, 100 won of the deceased’s KRW 100 million for the purpose of operating the modernized industry corporation operated by the deceased; (c) on September 28, 2004, Defendant 5, who is his/her father, issued a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression to the deceased; and (d) on December 26, 2006, the Plaintiff received an application for a provisional attachment of KRW 30,000,000 from the deceased to the Plaintiff for the provisional attachment of KRW 10,000,000 for KRW 10,000,000,000 for KRW 10,000,000,000,000 for KRW 10,000 for each of the above 20,000,0000,000,000.

C. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, while the deceased borrowed KRW 100 million from the plaintiff or issued the Promissory Notes and delivered them to the plaintiff, Defendant 5 did not have contacted or negotiated directly with the plaintiff as the creditor. The Promissory Notes of this case were issued at the plaintiff's request and the plaintiff directly entrusted the preparation of a promissory note as the representative of Defendant 5 with the power attached with the certificate of personal seal impression issued by the plaintiff 5. On the other hand, the plaintiff was issued a separate disposal document as of July 8, 2010 and April 29, 201 by the deceased. Such disposal document is only a signature or seal of the deceased, and there is no signature or seal affixed by the defendant 5. The defendant 5 appears to have not been aware of the plaintiff as the creditor, and there is no evidence to support that the actual profits from borrowing money or the issuance of the Promissory Notes of this case were attributed to the defendant 5.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if Defendant 5 knew of the fact that the Promissory Notes was issued in order to secure the deceased’s obligation to borrow loans, such circumstance alone is difficult to deem that the Promissory Notes were issued with the intent of Defendant 5 to bear the liability as the issuer of the Promissory Notes and to bear the civil guarantee liability.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that Defendant 5 jointly and severally guaranteed the deceased’s loan obligations. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a civil guarantee agreement with respect to the issuance of promissory notes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that the deceased was a loan of KRW 100 million from the plaintiff, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant 5, the part against Defendant 5 among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All appeals by Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed. The costs of appeal by Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)