[보증채무금][공1982.11.15.(692),937]
Termination of a contract for fidelity guarantee by a person responsible for the guarantee of identity under the express representation provision;
In light of the fact that the contract for the guarantee of this case is a continuous guarantee contract and the term or limit of the guarantee has not been set, and in particular, the circumstance in which the defendant was responsible for the guarantee of this case is based on the apparent representation liability, if it is acknowledged that the defendant asked that the executive director or the guarantor of the plaintiff company was the executive director or the guarantor of the plaintiff company, and if it is recognized that the defendant would not be responsible for the future, it shall be deemed that the defendant expressed his/her intent to terminate the contract to the plaintiff, and unless there are special circumstances such as there is a concern that the plaintiff may not have impliedly suffered damage due to the termination of the contract, it shall be deemed that the contract for the guarantee of this case was lawfully terminated by the declaration of termination as above,
Article 5 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act
Cho Jong Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Attorney Song-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Daegu High Court Decision 81Na23 delivered on June 11, 1981
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu High School Law.
The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant and the non-party 1 living together in Busan and operated the Busan and Gyeongnam District Agency as a partner in the business of making investments in capital in Busan, and the non-party 1 was required to be a guarantor in finding employment as the head of Busan office around September 197 as a director of the above agency's general name, and he was in need of a guarantor in finding employment as the head of the office of contact in Busan around September 197, the defendant's name was in possession of a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of personal seal in the name of the defendant delivered by the defendant for the registration of the above agency on behalf of the defendant at that time. Since the above seal exceeds his authority, the non-party 1 prepared a certificate of personal seal impression in the name of the defendant that he would jointly and severally compensate when he lost or damaged cash, securities, or other property, which he is in the office of the plaintiff company, and submitted to the plaintiff company with the certificate of personal seal impression attached to it. The above facts do not err in the judgment below.
Meanwhile, the court below reasoned on March 1978 that the defendant terminated the contract of this case on the ground that the non-party 1's embezzlement act of the non-party 1, but the defendant's testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's testimony of the non-party 1 as the result of the examination of the defendant himself and the non-party 1's testimony of the non-party 1 cannot be easily believed and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. However, in light of the record, the above pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro.
Furthermore, in light of the fact that the instant contract for the fidelity guarantee is a continuous guarantee contract and the term or limit of the guarantee is not specified, and the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s liability for the expression as seen above, it is reasonable to deem that the instant contract for the fidelity guarantee was lawfully terminated as an expression of intent to terminate the contract, barring special circumstances, such as that the termination of the contract is likely to cause losses that may not be implied to the Plaintiff under the good faith principle.
Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's claim for termination of contract constitutes an error of law by misunderstanding the facts of the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the termination of contract for fidelity guarantee, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a case of serious violation of law, which can be recognized as significantly contrary to justice and equity, and thus, the appeal
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other 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 Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)