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 the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for addition as set forth in the following two, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. On the 8th instance judgment, the following is added to the phrase “no reason exists” in the 16th instance judgment.

[Additional Part] Meanwhile, Article 6(1) and (2) of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”) provides that the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt shall be specified in writing in a case where the obligee and the principal obligor guarantee the obligation arising from a specific transaction agreement continuously between the obligee and the principal obligor, and that the guarantee contract that does not specify the maximum amount in writing is invalid

However, Article 1 of the Surety Protection Act provides that the purpose of preventing any economic and mental harm of a guarantor due to a guarantee made in each subparagraph without any consideration is to prevent such damage. For this reason, Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) and (2) of the Surety Protection Act excludes “where a guarantee obligation is owed to another person in relation to the business run by an enterprise under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act” and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act provides that “an enterprise refers to an individual or juristic person engaged in a business and an organization thereof.”

Therefore, if a guarantee contract entered into by an individual or a corporation with respect to another person's obligations is related to the business of the other person, the guarantee contract is not subject to the guarantor protection law, and even if the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligations is not specified in writing, it cannot be deemed null and void pursuant to Article 6 (2) of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da64663, Nov. 14, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is reasonable to view the foregoing.