beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as follows, except for adding the following determination as to the new argument that the plaintiffs raised at the trial of the court of first instance under Section 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation as
2. In the event that a person who has become a guarantor for a company's obligations arising from continuous transactions with a company and a bank, etc., inevitably leaves the position of director (representative director) as a director, the defendant should recognize the termination of the guarantee agreement by deeming that the circumstances at the time of the formation of the guarantee agreement have been significantly changed. The network E is a joint defendant A (hereinafter "A") of the first instance court.
A) As a representative director, if he/she has become a guarantor inevitably and later became a guarantor due to the death, he/she can naturally leave the status of A’s representative director at the time of his/her death, and thus, he/she can be deemed to have practically exercised the right to terminate the said guarantee. As such, each of the parties’ respective warranty obligations agreement asserts that the status of a guarantor under the network E does not inherit his/her heir to the Defendant. In addition, in cases where the director of the company has entered into a guarantee agreement for the company’s obligations of which the amount of debt and the due date are specified, unlike the case of continuous guarantee or comprehensive collateral guarantee, the director who is the guarantor may not unilaterally terminate the guarantee agreement on the ground of the change in the situation of resignation of director (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da30675, Jul. 4, 2006; 34 and 37, according to the overall purport of arguments and arguments, E shall be deemed to have a management right holder or oligopolistic shareholder as an individual joint title.