1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the new argument made by the defendant in this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for further determination

2. Judgment on the defendant's new argument

A. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of violation of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety, since the Plaintiff did not specify the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt in writing, each of the instant joint and several surety contracts is null and void in accordance with Articles 4 and 6(2) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”).

(2) The former part of Article 4 of the Surety Protection Act provides that “When a guarantee contract is concluded, the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt must be specified in writing,” and Article 6(1) and (2) provides that “in the case of a collateral guarantee, the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt must be specified in writing, and a guarantee contract that does not specify in writing the maximum amount of the debt

The former part of Article 4 of the Surety Protection Act provides that the guarantor may estimate the main contents of the legal burden he/she owes in advance in guaranteeing the principal obligation. Thus, in cases of a general guarantee in which the guarantor has expressed his/her intent to guarantee in the form of signing and sealing or signing the certificate of claim concerning the principal obligation, if the amount of the principal obligation he/she owes in the document clearly, barring any other special circumstances, the former part of Article 4 of the Surety Protection Act shall be deemed legally satisfied, and it does not require that the amount of the principal obligation should be specified separately for the subordinate obligation such as interest or delay damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da23372, Jun. 27, 2013). According to the entries in the evidence No. 1 and the entire purport of arguments, according to the entire purport of each of the loans in this case, the total amount of loans in the application for each of the loans in this case shall be KRW 112,80