1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, at the request of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), did not receive transportation charges even though it had been ordered to transport goods. On July 20, 2017, B prepared a document stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay transportation charges of KRW 63,223,00 in three installments” (hereinafter “instant document”).

B. On July 20, 2017, the Defendant, at the Plaintiff’s request, entered the Plaintiff’s position, name, resident registration number, front and back-side first number and address at the margin at the lower left-hand side of the instant document, and entered the remainder of the resident registration number on August 16, 2017 in addition to the Plaintiff’s remaining resident registration numbers.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant stated his personal information in the document of this case in the sense that he guaranteed B's transportation charge obligation, the defendant bears the guarantee liability.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff company usually received the personal information of the document maker from the defendant, and that there was no intention of guarantee, only because the plaintiff requested to enter the defendant's personal information in the margin of the document in this case.

B. The judgment on the assertion was examined, and as seen earlier, the document of this case promised B to pay transportation fees to the plaintiff, and the defendant entered his resident registration number and other personal information in the margin at that bottom.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant did not express his intention to guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation to the instant document in addition to the Defendant’s personal information, and the Defendant only worked as a director B from around 2016, and thus, the Defendant’s interest that the Defendant could obtain by guaranteeing the Defendant’s obligation is not clear.