1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. On February 4, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with A (AD A63.0) on an automobile (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the ground that the Plaintiff was deprived of the benefit of time on March 26, 2012, in order for A to not pay the lease fee to the Plaintiff from August 17, 2011.

A The sum of the lease fees in arrears under the instant lease agreement is KRW 41,389,380 as of July 5, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 (excluding the part on which the signature and seal of the defendant's name are affixed), Gap 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff obtained the Defendant’s signature and seal on the column of the joint and several sureties of the lease contract (A1) and the seal affixed thereto are identical to the Defendant’s seal impression. As such, the part of the Defendant’s preparation of the lease contract is presumed to be genuine, and the Defendant’s signature and seal was presumed to have been established, among the requirements of the “written document bearing a signature or seal” under Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of sureties (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”), which satisfies the method of signing

Furthermore, at the time of the lease contract in this case, the defendant explicitly expressed his intention to stand a joint and several surety in the telephone call with the plaintiff's employee at the time of the lease contract in this case, and on the same day the plaintiff collected a certificate of personal seal impression or a copy of resident registration certificate of the defendant, the signature or seal of the lease contract was made

Furthermore, since the defendant is in a partnership relationship with A, the main debtor of the lease contract in this case, the guarantor protection law cannot be applied, and as long as part of the guarantee obligation has been discharged, the defendant cannot claim the defects in the method requirements under Article 3 (1) of the guarantor protection law.

3. Determination

A. As to the application of the Act on the Protection of Surety, Article 1 of the Act on the Protection of Suretyship provides for a special exception to the Civil Code and provides for each subparagraph without any consideration.