The case holding that a guarantee contract for the obligations for the payment of cosmetics to be incurred in the future between a cosmetics company and a cosmetics seller is not a guarantee contract, but a financial guarantee contract.

In order for Company A to purchase and sell cosmetics from Company B and to acquire a certain percentage of money for sales proceeds, and to pay value-added tax on the transaction with Company B without filing for business registration. In the above agreement between Company B and Company B, there is a statement that the contract was not a guarantee contract for the obligation to pay for the non-cosmetic amount to be borne by Company B between Company B and Company B, and the main text of the contract is merely a guarantee contract for the obligation to compensate for damages caused by the employee's act, and the contract between Company B and Company B is not a guarantee contract for the obligation to pay for the non-cosmetic amount to be borne by Company B.

Article 1 of the Guarantee of Personal Identity Act, Article 428 of the Civil Act

Pacific Chemical Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Judgment of the court below] The defendants et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na2235 delivered on May 31, 1989

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above company's sales agreement between the above company and the above 198.3.2 with the above 3-year seller's business registration agreement was concluded between the above 198 and the above 1-year seller's office and the above 3-year seller's financial guarantee agreement that the above 1-year seller will receive a certain amount of money for the sales proceeds. The above 3-year seller's financial guarantee agreement was signed and sealed by the plaintiff company for the above 3-year seller's financial guarantee, and the above 3-year seller's financial guarantee agreement was signed and sealed. The above 5-year seller's financial guarantee agreement was concluded between the above 1-year seller's office and the above 3-year seller's office's business registration agreement was signed and sealed, and the above 3-year seller's office's business registration agreement was not accepted and sold to the above 1-year seller's office. The above 3-year seller's office's business registration agreement was not prepared in the form.

However, according to the evidence written by the court below in the above fact-finding document, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Agreement on Trade), 4 and 5 (Transaction Nos. 5) of the above fact-finding document, as acknowledged in the first head of the judgment of the court below in the above fact-finding, the court below agreed to receive and sell cosmetics from the company of the plaintiff company and to acquire a certain percentage of money for the sales proceeds (the court below expressed that the plaintiff was paid a certain percentage of money and paid the remainder to the plaintiff company), and it seems that the plaintiff company paid value-added tax on the transaction with the plaintiff company with business registration and the plaintiff company was the principal agent of the transaction and the above late scar was the sales employee of the plaintiff company, and there is no ground to believe that the contract under paragraph (1) is not a guarantee contract, and the main text of the contract can not be found to the purport that it merely guaranteed the defendant's obligation to pay damages to the employee's act.

As acknowledged by the court below, on the ground that the respondent did not have a certain place of business or received education on the beauty and product knowledge of cosmetics for which the respondent did not have a certain place of business, it cannot be concluded that the transaction is not a sale transaction of cosmetics, and even if there was a stipulation that the plaintiff company guaranteed the loan [liability for compensation due to intention and negligence] in the written contract of financial guarantee between the non-party in this order and the defendants before taking over the Gangnam agency, it is difficult to conclude that the contract of financial guarantee between the plaintiff and the defendant is a contract of financial guarantee since it is true unless there is any evidence cited in the written contract of financial guarantee between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The court below recognized the financial guarantee contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as a contract for the guarantee of identity without any clear evidence or there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the contract for guarantee of identity, and there is a ground for appeal pointing this out.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)