1. From September 28, 2018 to May 31, 2019, the Defendant’s KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2015, C prepared a cash tea certificate (hereinafter “the instant cash tea certificate”) with the purport to borrow KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff and return it until October 1, 2016, and at the time, the Defendant entered the following in the joint and several surety column of the cash tea certificate:

DB EF

B. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to the national bank account in the name of G (H company).

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Evidence A 1 and 2, the written testimony of the witness C, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff prepared the cash tea certificate of this case and lent KRW 50 million to C accordingly, and the Defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (1) is that the Plaintiff’s lending of money (hereinafter “the lending of this case”) is not C but G, and thus, the Defendant is not liable to pay the money.

(2) According to Article 3(1) of the former Special Act on the Protection of Suretys (amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015) that was applied at the time of the instant joint and several sureties, the guarantee shall take effect after being indicated in writing with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor. However, the Defendant did not have affixed the name and seal or signature on the certificate of cash car in the instant case.

(3) Since the Plaintiff violated the notification obligation under Article 5 of the Special Act on the Protection of Guarantor (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”), the Defendant’s guaranteed obligation was exempted.

(4) Since the trust relationship with C was broken, the instant joint and several guarantee contract is terminated by the service of the Defendant’s preparatory document dated April 9, 2019.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier prior to the obligor’s confirmation of the instant loan, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million on October 2, 2015 to G. However, according to the witness C’s written testimony, C used the instant account and received money to the said account, and C actually received money.