beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Supreme Court Decision 2013Da64663 Decided November 14, 2013 rendered the following judgments.
Article 6(1) and (2) of the Special Act on the Protection of Guarantors (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”) provides that the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt shall be specified in writing in the case of guaranteeing obligations arising from a continuous contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, and that the guarantee contract that does not specify in writing the maximum amount of the debt shall not be effective.
Article 1 of the Surety Protection Act provides that the purpose of Article 1 is to prevent any economic and mental harm of a guarantor caused by a guarantee that takes place only with no consideration. For this reason, Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) and 2 of the Surety Protection Act excludes cases where a guarantee obligation is borne by an enterprise under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act for another person’s obligation related to the business run by the enterprise under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Surety Protection Act. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act provides that “an enterprise refers to an individual, corporation,
Therefore, if an individual or corporation entered into a guarantee agreement with another person's obligation and the obligation of the other person is related to the business of the other person, the guarantee agreement is not subject to the guarantor protection law, and even if the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation is not specified in writing, it cannot be deemed null and void pursuant to Article 6 (2)
2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court concluded a contract on the supply of the instant iron bars with the firstman on March 201, 201, and the Defendant owed the Plaintiff the obligation to pay the cost of the instant iron bars to the Plaintiff.