The case holding that it is reasonable to limit the liability for guarantee regardless of the text of the written pledge of hospitalization to guarantee the full amount of the medical expenses of the guarantor, on the ground that it is improper to hold the person who guaranteed the obligation for the payment of the medical expenses of a person who has no relationship due to the reason of the person's employment at the university's affiliated hospital.

When Gap and Eul were killed in a traffic accident and were hospitalized in the emergency department of a university affiliated with the university, and they were in an emergency situation to the extent that their life was critical, unless they immediately undergo an emergency operation, but their family members were seriously unable to leave the hospital due to traffic congestion, the case held that Eul's family members, upon Eul's request from Byung who was a medical doctor of the above hospital through the professor of the above university, were jointly and severally guaranteed medical expenses without any relation due to the circumstance that Byung's joint and several liability for the medical expenses was jointly and severally guaranteed by the above hospital, and that the above hospital was jointly and severally guaranteed by Byung without a deposit deposit for hospitalization from Gap, and the medical expenses were guaranteed by Byung for Eul, in light of the circumstance that Byung was guaranteed by the patient's first time, Byung was in an emergency treatment, and then his family members were to replace Eul's family members until the patient was found in the hospital, and thus, it is highly probable that Byung's medical expenses were guaranteed by the doctor Byung's debt guarantee in full, and thus, it is reasonable that Byung's family members were liable to guarantee the above.

Articles 2 and 429 of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant-Appellant Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Na3771 delivered on March 31, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's liability for guarantee should be limited in consideration of the circumstance of guarantee, etc., and the defendant's assertion that the defendant is liable to guarantee the total amount of the above medical expenses, as the non-party 1 sustained injury on October 7, 1987 due to traffic accident and received hospitalization treatment at the hospital annexed to the plaintiff corporation, and the defendant guaranteed the above non-party 1's liability for future hospitalized treatment expenses for 103 days from the same day to January 17, 1988.

According to the evidence No. 2 (involuntary admission) which is the basis of the guaranteed liability of this case, it is clear that the defendant guarantees the full amount of the obligation for medical expenses incurred continuously during the future uncertain period in which the above non-party 1 treats the above non-party 1's wife without setting the limit of liability.

However, according to the court below's decision, the defendant's above guarantee had been granted to the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1's hospital because the non-party 1 fell below the above non-party 1's bridge while driving the above non-party 2 on the bus, and was hospitalized in the plaintiff's emergency hospital because the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 suffered from the above non-party 1's accident. At the time of the accident, the non-party 1's life was in an emergency situation to the extent that the non-party 1's family members could not be able to get the patient's life, but the above non-party 1's family members could not get the defendant's joint and several liability to the non-party 1's house because the non-party 1's family members were not able to get the above non-party 1's guarantee for the above non-party 1's medical treatment expenses, and the defendant did not have any relation to the non-party 1's family members after his request the above non-party 1's family members.

In light of the above points, the court below should have deliberated and judged more on whether to limit the defendant's liability for guarantee and the scope of liability when limiting the liability for guarantee, but without doing so, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the guarantor's liability in the continuous guarantee contract of continuous guarantee without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations that recognized the defendant's liability for guarantee for the full amount of medical expenses of the above non-party 1. Therefore, the argument that points this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)