[구상금][하집1988(2),250]
In cases where a joint and several surety contract is concluded between a person who has the principal's seal impression, a person who has the certificate of his/her seal impression, and the Korea Guarantee Agency, the establishment of a vicarious and several surety
An insurance company that has specialized knowledge of the conclusion, etc. of a joint and several sureties contract shall be required to investigate and confirm at a higher level than the general public with regard to whether the guarantee contract is based on the intent of the guarantor, and whether the guarantor knows the content of responsibility to return to himself/herself, etc. Therefore, in cases where a person who refers to his/her agent only possessed a seal imprint, a certificate of personal seal impression, etc., if he/she only held the said seal imprint, etc., he/she cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds to believe that he/she has the right of representation, unless there is no main reason to ask for the personal seal imprint, etc., the reason why he/she possessed the said seal imprint, etc., and the relationship with
Article 126 of the Civil Act
Korea Guarantee Insurance Corporation
Maximum water number and 5 others
1. The amount of 34,008,693 won and 22,392,055 won, jointly and severally, shall be paid to the Plaintiff at the rate of 19% per annum from June 12, 1987 to the full payment date.
2. The plaintiff's claims against defendant Kim Jong-sik and defendant Kim Jong-sik are all dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant Kim Jong-sik and Defendant Kim Jong-sik is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants is assessed against the remainder of the Defendants.
4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.
With respect to Defendant Maximum Number, Heung-do, Cho Jong-do, and Uniform Heavy Co., Ltd., the Defendants would pay the amount of money listed in the same paragraph jointly with the Defendant listed in paragraph (1) of the same Article.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the same defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.
1. The plaintiff is the cause of the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 1, the maximum number of the defendant 2, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, the defendant 3, and the non-party 1, the defendant 2, who agreed to pay 36,00,00 won among the 4,00,000 won to the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the defendant 1 and the non-party 3, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 1, the defendant 3, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 2, the defendant 1, and the defendant 2, the defendant 1, the non-party 3, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 3, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the non-party 3, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 2.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant 1 is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 2,392,055 won (33,812,385-11,420,330 won (the remaining amount of the insurance money 33,812, 385-11, 420,330) and the agreed delay damages at the rate of 11,616,638 won (the agreed delay damages 33,812,385 x 60/365 x 0.19) calculated by applying the rate of 19% per annum from August 21, 1985, which is the payment date of the above insurance money to June 11, 1987, together with the agreed delay damages at the rate of 34,08,693 won and 22,392,055 won above and the agreed delay damages from June 19, 1987.
2. The plaintiff asserts that on January 12, 1985, the defendants himself/herself or through Nonparty 1, who are his/her representatives, the defendants himself/herself or through Nonparty 1, who are his/her representatives, they jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of indemnity to the plaintiff as stated in the above Paragraph (1). Thus, on the Gap evidence 2 (Guarantee Insurance Agreement), for which the defendant's maximum number of members of the defendant Kim Jong-sik and Kim Jong-sik acknowledged each name's seal of each name, the above defendants affixed their seals as if they jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation of indemnity to the plaintiff of the maximum number of members of the defendant, but as seen thereafter, they were written without permission using the seals of the same defendants as they were kept in custody by Nonparty 1. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed as supporting the fact that the defendants voluntarily or Nonparty 1 signed the above contract as a legitimate representative of the defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.
Furthermore, even if Nonparty 1 did not have the authority to conclude a joint and several liability contract on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s maximum number of members on behalf of the Plaintiff on the part of the Defendant, the said Defendants asserted that Nonparty 1 is liable for the act of expression representation in excess of the said authority as seen above, since they consented to conclude a joint and several liability contract on behalf of the said Defendants as to the obligation of automobile installment payment between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, and thus granting the basic authority by granting the said Defendants’ seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression, etc. designated for guarantee. The Plaintiff held that Nonparty 1 had the authority to conclude a joint and several liability contract on behalf of the said Defendants on behalf of the said Defendants.
Therefore, it is recognized that the plaintiff's agent is the same as the defendant's agent, and the defendant's seal 1 and the defendant's seal 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 5 and 4 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 6 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 6 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 6 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 6 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1.
In light of the above facts, it is necessary for the Defendants to investigate and confirm the extent of the above joint and several surety by Nonparty 1’s authority to conclude a joint and several surety agreement on behalf of Nonparty 1 on behalf of the same Defendants, and thus, Nonparty 1 had basic authority to act for the same Defendants and to act beyond their basic authority to act on behalf of the same Defendants. However, as to whether the Plaintiff has justifiable grounds to believe that it was entitled to conclude a joint and several surety agreement on behalf of Nonparty 1 on behalf of the same Defendants, it is necessary to establish a guarantee agreement with the guarantor in terms of the conclusion of the joint and several surety agreement as in the case of an insurance company with professional knowledge about the conclusion of the joint and several surety agreement as in this case. Thus, according to the above facts that the Defendants did not have the right to act on behalf of Nonparty 1 on behalf of the same Defendants, the Defendants did not have any authority to act on behalf of Nonparty 1 on behalf of the same Defendants, and the Defendants did not have any authority to act on behalf of Nonparty 1 on behalf of the same Defendants, and there is no need for the Defendants to act as the Defendants.
3. If so, the claims of this case against the plaintiff, the best number of the defendant, the Heung-type, the Cho Jong-type and the unification period are all justified, and all claims against the defendant Kim Jong-type and Kim Jong-hwan are dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 and Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost-bearing, and Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings to the Declaration of Provisional Execution.
Judges Yellow Sea (Presiding Judge)