Cases of denying the establishment of an expression agency;

In a case where a joint and several surety has issued a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression to be used to the surety upon the request of the principal obligor for the preparation of documents necessary for the extension of the due date for the guaranteed obligation, and there is no new obligation burden, or there is no permission for the establishment of a security for the obligation. In a case where a joint and several surety has prepared a joint and several surety for the burden of additional obligation by using the guarantor’s certificate of seal impression, it is difficult to deem that there exists a justifiable reason to believe

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Korea Development Bank Co.

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of Seoul District Court (75Gahap675 decided May 1, 200)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from the following day of service to the full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

On February 12, 1969, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 were jointly and severally liable to the non-party 1 for the above loan transaction with the plaintiff, and the non-party 1 was only partially repaid on four occasions as stated in the separate sheet, and the balance of the loan is as stated in the same sheet. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the non-party 2, a joint and several surety of the above loan, sought payment of the money for the above loan out of the balance of the loan, the non-party 1 was denied. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1's joint and several surety was jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2's statement on the above loan out of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's statement on the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's statement on the above loan out of the above loan out of the above 9's signature affixed to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's statement No. 1 and evidence No. 5 (No. 3).

In addition, as seen above, the defendant issued a certificate of the seal imprint to the non-party 1 to use the loan to the non-party 1 as a joint and several surety prior to the expiration date of the loan obligation. If the non-party 1 issued a new certificate of the seal imprint to the non-party 1, this agreement constitutes an act within the legitimate scope of the right of representation. Even if the non-party 1 did not have such right of representation, the non-party 1 had the defendant's seal imprint as at the time of the above joint and several surety agreement, and the defendant did not have the defendant's seal imprint as at the time of the above joint and several surety agreement, and the non-party 1 did not have the defendant's right of representation as at the time of the above loan agreement and the non-party 1's new certificate of the seal imprint to the non-party 1 to whom the non-party 1 had the right of representation on behalf of the non-party 1 as a joint and several surety, and there is no reason to believe that the non-party 1 had such right of representation 1 as at the above.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant guaranteed the non-party 1's debt to the plaintiff on February 12, 1969 shall be dismissed without any further consideration. The judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are borne by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges’ advice (Presiding Judge) and Kim Young-jin’s high class