Cases where the guarantor's defense of the highest search and the judgment thereof were erroneous;

Peremptory notice to the principal obligor shall be given to the surety before the demand of the surety is made.

(2) shall be effective at the same time as

Articles 452 and 453 of the Civil Code before the amendment, and Article 452 of the current Civil Code

00. 00.

South Korean Peninsulas

Seoul High Court Decision 4293No658 delivered on February 21, 1961

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

This case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent are as shown in the attached Table.

If we consider the rights of the guarantor in light of the provisions of the Gu residents' law which had been enforced at the time of this case, the guarantor can request the debtor to give priority to the obligee's demand for performance of obligation. Therefore, the obligee can not request the guarantor's right unless the principal obligor gives peremptory notice, and it is not necessary to prove that the guarantor's right to demand reimbursement has no effect, and the principal obligor's right to demand reimbursement can not be allowed unless the obligee has given peremptory notice to the obligor, or there is a peremptory notice to the obligor at the same time before the obligee requests performance of the surety's right to demand reimbursement. Thus, in this case, the court below's decision that the guarantor's right to demand reimbursement against the non-party who is the principal obligor cannot be acknowledged as being contradictory to the defendant's right to demand reimbursement because it is hard to acknowledge that the defendant's right to demand reimbursement against the guarantor's own defense, which is the surety's right to demand reimbursement, is not sufficient to prove that the court below's right to demand reimbursement against the defendant as the guarantor's right to demand explanation.

This case is deemed to be reasonable to have the original court adjudicate again, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-ho (Presiding Judge)