1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 15,00,000 to C with interest rate of KRW 150,000 per month, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation on March 7, 2017.

On April 22, 2017, the Defendant repaid only KRW 700,000 out of the principal of the above loan, and C did not repay the above loan even though its maturity has expired.

Therefore, the defendant who is a joint and several surety shall pay 14,300,000 won and delay damages for the remaining principal of the above loan jointly and severally with C.

B. The facts without any dispute over judgment, the entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff determined KRW 15,00,000 to C on December 5, 2016 as interest KRW 150,000 per month; (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,000 on May 5, 2017, and KRW 5,000,000 on September 5, 2017, and KRW 5,000,000 on December 5, 2017, respectively (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (c) the Defendant paid KRW 70,000,000 out of the principal of the instant loan to the Plaintiff on April 22, 2017.

However, Article 428-2(1) of the Civil Code provides that "a guarantee shall take effect upon the document with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor," and the above provision demands a document with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor in the expression of intent of guarantee to ensure the clear means of confirmation as to the existence and content of the guarantor by clearly expressing the intent of guarantee, and to prevent the dispute by guaranteeing the method of confirmation as to the existence and existence of the intent of guarantee and to make the guarantor provide a guarantee as a result of deliberation and inspection, as far as possible.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da233576, Dec. 13, 2017). The fact that the Defendant did not prepare a document stating the intent of joint and several sureties regarding the instant loan does not conflict between the parties, and thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the instant loan.