[1] The method of determining whether an intention to guarantee exists, which is the requirement for a guarantee agreement

[2] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to guarantee the payment of a promissory note with a small face value on the sole basis of the fact that an endorsement of the name of the holder of a promissory note with a large face value is arranged to exchange with a promissory note with a small face value of purchase

[1] In order to recognize the formation of a guarantee agreement, there must be a guarantor's intent to act as a matter of course. The existence of such guarantee intention is a matter of interpretation of the parties' intent and fact-finding to be determined by comprehensively considering the motive and background of the parties involved in the transaction, the form and content of the involvement, the purpose to be achieved by the transaction, the transaction practices, etc. However, in special circumstances where the guarantee bears it, the existence of the guarantor's intent or the scope of guarantee should be strictly limited.

[2] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to guarantee the payment of a promissory note with a small face value on the sole basis of the fact that an endorsement of the name of the holder of a promissory note with a large face value at the request of the holder of the promissory note with a large face value is arranged to exchange it with a promissory note with a small face value.

[1] Articles 105 and 428 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105 and 428 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da35571 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 1997)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na43535 delivered on July 24, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order to recognize the establishment of a guarantee agreement, there must be a guarantor's intent of guarantee. The existence of such guarantee intention is a matter of interpretation of the parties' intent and fact-finding to be determined by comprehensively considering the motive and background of the parties involved in the transaction, the form and contents of the involvement, the purpose to be achieved by the transaction, the transaction practices, etc. However, since the guarantee agreement is made in special circumstances to bear it, the existence and scope of the guarantor's intention of guarantee should be strictly limited and recognized.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was liable to pay the above promissory note to the non-party 2 for the payment of the above promissory note because it is difficult to view that the non-party 2 had a duty to pay the above promissory note to the non-party 3 to exchange the above promissory note with the above non-party 3's own employees, because it is too high par value and it is difficult to use the promissory note as it is, therefore, because the non-party 2 issued the above promissory note with the advance payment of the price for the article, and the non-party 1 had a duty to pay the above promissory note with the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 to exchange it with the above non-party 3's own employees, and it is hard to view that the non-party 2 had a duty to pay the above promissory note with the above non-party 2's own employees to exchange it with the above promissory note, and there is no violation of the legal principles as to the non-party 2's payment of the above promissory note.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)