Where it is not implicitly deemed that a joint and several guarantee contract is concluded.

Even if the husband of the debtor's husband made a reply to the debtor's claim for payment of the money and consumed the money by himself, it cannot be viewed that the debtor's husband guaranteed the obligation explicitly.

Article 428 of the Civil Act, Article 437 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na716 delivered on December 29, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na716 delivered on December 29, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are as follows.

The issue is that the defendant, who was the co-defendant of the court of first instance, was the co-defendant of the debtor with respect to the loan for consumption of KRW 35,00,00 among the plaintiff and the co-defendant of the court of first instance, was the co-defendant, and the defendant was the joint surety, and the defendant was impliedly the defendant, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim without reliance on the plaintiff's testimony despite the non-party's non-party's testimony. However, although the plaintiff's husband's claim for the payment of the above amount, such as the plaintiff's theory, the defendant immediately paid it to the defendant when the plaintiff's husband claimed the payment of the above amount, and even if the money was consumed by the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the above joint and several surety contract was established implicitly between the original defendant, and the court below's rejection of the non-party's testimony cannot be deemed to violate the rules of evidence, and therefore, it cannot be

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

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng