물품대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with E (hereinafter “E”) to supply ready-mixed at the construction site for the F Multi-household Housing (hereinafter “instant construction site”). At the time, the Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the payment obligation for the said goods, and the details thereof are as shown in the attached Table.
B. According to the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed at the construction site of this case from February 12, 2014 to March 3, 2015, and received payment for the supply of ready-mixed.
C. Upon the request of E on May 23, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied a contact equivalent to KRW 22,440,000 at the instant construction site, and E paid KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff as the price for the contact on March 31, 2016, and KRW 3,000,000 on June 30, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5 through 7, 9, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s alleged Defendants are jointly and severally guaranteed not only the E’s obligation to supply ready-mixed, but also the obligation to supply asphalt. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 14,440,00 (=22,440,000 - KRW 5,000,000 - 3,000,000).
3. Determination
A. In order to recognize the establishment of a guarantee agreement, there must be, as a matter of course, the guarantor’s intent to guarantee the agreement. The existence of such guarantee intention is a matter of interpretation of the parties’ intent and fact-finding to be determined by comprehensively considering the motive and background of the parties involved in the transaction, the form and content of the involvement, the purpose to be achieved by the transaction, the transaction practices, etc. However, the existence of the guarantor or the scope of guarantee should be strictly limited inasmuch as there are special circumstances to recognize it.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da34134 Decided December 21, 2006, etc.).B.
. The above.