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 of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts 3, 10 to 17, 3, 10, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 100
The defendant asserts that the above joint and several guarantee agreement of the non-party company as the spouse of the representative director of the non-party company at the time of the credit guarantee agreement of this case was null and void in violation of the good faith principle, since the non-party company's representative director did not know the legal meaning of the joint and several sureties and did not own property and it was not profitable to secure the claim.
The statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Even if the circumstance alleged by the defendant is acknowledged, not only the case of continuous guarantee, but also the case of general guarantee that guarantees a certain obligation, which is not only in the case of a continuous guarantee that guarantees an obligation with uncertain obligations arising from a continuous business relationship between an obligee and an obligor, if the obligee’s exercise of rights is of a nature not to pay it in accordance with the good faith principle, it may be exceptionally permitted to limit the obligee’s liability. However, limiting the liability under the good faith principle, such as the good faith principle, once the obligee’s exercise of rights is of a nature not to pay it, may cause serious threat to the private autonomy principle or legal stability, and thus, it shall be extremely exceptionally acknowledged based on prudence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da45410, Jan. 27, 2004). In light of the good faith principle as alleged by