beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition to the following, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420
2. The addition of the judgment of the court of first instance is accompanied by the following judgments in the fourth page.
Although the Defendant asserts that the above entry of the letter of security offer in this case is merely a fluent letter and thus should be excluded, the above letter of security offer was made in the process of acquiring the F’s contractual status against the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that there was a part printed in the same fluent letter in advance to be used in the general transaction, and the above letter of security offer No. 6-8 of the first instance judgment is as follows.
Article 7(1) of the Surety Protection Act provides that "the period of guarantee shall be deemed three years if there is no agreement on the period of guarantee." However, the term of guarantee under the above provision refers to the period during which the guaranteed obligation may specifically occur. In the case of guarantee of a guarantee of an obligation with respect to a probationary guarantee or a continuous transaction, if there is no agreement on the guarantee of an obligation, the term shall be limited to three years, and it shall not be deemed that the obligation of the guarantor is extinguished when three years have passed from the date of the conclusion of the guarantee contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da36914, Jan. 14, 2016). However, according to the above evidence, the price of the goods in this case was already incurred between the end of May 2013 and the end of November 3, 2015, before the expiration of three years from the date of the guaranteed obligation of the Defendant, and thereafter, the Defendant’s assertion that the guaranteed obligation was extinguished on Nov. 30, 2016.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant is the defendant.