구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except where the “Defendant Company” of the judgment of the first instance is both linked to “C”; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s Defendant was a director of C, and thus, the Special Act on the Protection of Surety (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”).
) It does not fall under the guarantor to whom this Act applies, and the defendant has jointly and severally guaranteed C's obligation to E (hereinafter referred to as "joint and several guarantee contract of this case").
() The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and F were in the position of a joint guarantor with respect to the above obligation. Accordingly, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff KRW 33,333,333, which is equivalent to one-third of the Defendant’s share of KRW 100,000,000, which is the Defendant’s share of KRW 100,000,000, and damages for delay thereof. (2) Defendant A is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 33,333,33, and damages for delay. Defendant A
(B) Since a contract aimed at the continuous occurrence of a credit relationship provides that the extension of the implied period or the renewal thereof may be possible, and thus, is invalid in violation of Article 9 subparag. 6 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. (b) The defendant is a guarantor to whom the Surety Protection Act applies. Since the contract of this case was not notified of the principal debtor's default and credit information, it violates Articles 5 and 8 of the Act on the Protection of Surety, and it did not specify the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt in writing, and thus, violates Articles 4 and 6 of the Act on the Protection of Surety, and it did not notify the defendant of the renewal of the guarantee period, it is invalid
In the reply of November 12, 2019, the defendant is not only the guarantor protection law, but also the joint and several surety contract of this case.