Nature of guarantee contract of identity that bears damages under the Civil Act

A. If the contents of a contract are prepared in writing between the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted that the parties' intentions should be examined by the contents of the contract regardless of the parties' internal intent, and if the contents of the contract claimed by the parties impose a serious liability on the parties, the contents and phrases of the document shall be more strictly interpreted.

B. If there is no clear statement in a contract for fidelity guarantee that the principal will compensate the future civil damages due to the acts of the principal, the party who asserts that the guarantee was made shall bear the burden of proof.

Article 428 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 61No246 delivered on August 22, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 61Na246 decided August 22, 1961

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are as follows.

If a contract is prepared in writing between the parties to the contract, it shall be reasonably interpreted that the parties have participated in the contract, regardless of the party's internal intent, and if the contents of the contract as alleged by the parties impose serious liability on the parties, the contents and phrases shall be more strict. In particular, the guarantor in the guarantee contract for the identity that bears damages under the civil law does not guarantee the specific damages already occurred, but it shall guarantee the non-party's non-existence of intention (if there is no special limit on the amount) without fault in the future. Thus, the court below's reasoning that the contract for the guarantee of the non-party is not a clear statement that there is no liability for damages in the future due to the acts of the guarantor in the contract for the guarantee of the non-party and the non-party's non-party's explanation that there is no clear opinion that the court below's non-party's non-party's non-party's explanation that the defendant's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's defense should be interpreted.

Therefore, the ground of appeal of this case is without merit or with the assent of all participating judges, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Jinjin-man (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea is the maximum leapblebble leaps