Whether a check may be viewed as a guarantee for the underlying obligation.

The guarantee under the Check Act shall not be deemed to have been guaranteed or taken over by the drawer's cause obligations, unless there are special circumstances.

Articles 26 and 27 of the Check Act, Article 428 of the Civil Code

Seoul High Court Decision 4290No318 delivered on October 21, 1957

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (69Da3835)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 370,00 and the amount of KRW 370,000 with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (2).

In the past, when the plaintiff received a check under the name of the Dong and lent money of KRW 370,00 to the non-party 1 who operates the Han-Singbuk Agency, but the Dong defaulted and escaped, the plaintiff and the defendant et al., who are the creditors of the plaintiff and the defendant et al., in October 1968, in compromise with Dong-ri, the plaintiff and the non-party 2, who are the creditors of the plaintiff and the defendant et al., in order to pay the debt of the non-party 1 and pay the debt of the non-party 1, and as security, the plaintiff issued two copies of the first day check under the name of Dong-ri on April 30, 1969, and the plaintiff was in possession of the plaintiff, and this check was rejected on March 3, 1969, there is no dispute between the parties.

When the two copies of the check issued by Nonparty 2 were also insolvent, the Defendant agreed to accept or guarantee the obligation to the Plaintiff on April 30, 1969, and argued that the Defendant offered two copies of the check in the name of Nonparty 2 (in the name of Nonparty 1), which the Plaintiff possessed, as a security, and affixed the name and seal of the Defendant. Thus, in full view of the testimony of the above witness as to the statement of Nonparty 1 and 2, the Defendant issued and borrowed money from Nonparty 3 on January 15, 1969 at the Plaintiff’s request, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant guaranteed two copies of the check held by Nonparty 2 (in the name of Nonparty 1) and the Defendant’s name and seal on the date of the date of the check held by the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant’s act did not constitute an obligation of guarantee or the Defendant’s signature and seal on the part of Nonparty 2 (in the name of Nonparty 2, the Defendant’s act did not constitute an obligation of guarantee or the Defendant’s signature and seal.

The plaintiff's attorney also asserts that the defendant takes over the business of the non-party 1 and continues to use his trade name, and thus, the defendant is responsible for paying the above debt to the plaintiff of the non-party above arising from the business. In full view of the statements in Gap's 3,4,5, which are acknowledged to be genuine by the non-party 5's testimony, and the witness's testimony, it can be recognized that the defendant used the business signboards and telephone numbers at the non-party 1's shop where the non-party 1 operated the business as it is, and the non-party 1 used the business signboards and telephone numbers at the non-party 1's shop where the non-party 1 operated the business. However, since the non-party 1 escaped in the non-party 1's checks around September 1968, the non-party 1's inventory goods at the above point was made as labor cost, and the defendant's new leasing of the store and used the previous signboards and telephones as it was hard to find that the non-party 4, non-party 6 witness witness, and the defendant 1's witness's witness's testimony.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for objection is based on the ground that it is reasonable to dismiss it, the original judgment is just in its purport. Thus, it is decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss the plaintiff's objection pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act and to bear the costs of appeal.

Judges Sap-ho (Presiding Judge) the highest number of judges