beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the judgment as to the matters alleged in the trial by the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) above, and therefore, it is identical to the part corresponding to the defendant of the judgment by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination
A. Article 3(1) of the former Special Act on the Protection of Surety for the Defendant’s argument (amended by Act No. 10522, Mar. 31, 201; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “A guarantee shall take effect in writing with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor.” However, there is no express provision that includes an electronic document in writing, signed by using an authorized certificate the use of which is not restricted.
Therefore, since the defendant's digital signature on the joint and several surety prepared in the electronic form alone cannot be deemed to have expressed his intention to guarantee in writing, the contract of joint and several surety is null and void.
B. In light of the above facts, the defendant, the main debtor, the representative director of A, and the major shareholder, concluded the joint and several surety contract in the form of electronic document using an authorized certificate through E, which is the head of the general affairs team of the above company. In such a case, since the defendant falls under a person who is excluded from the guarantor under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) of the former Surety Protection Act, "the spouse of the company is sharing economic benefits with the company and bears the guaranteed liability for the company's obligations," it cannot be deemed that Article 3 (1) of the former Surety Protection Act is applied to the joint and several surety contract of this case. Even if the above provision is applied, the above provisions are contents of the above provision, Article 4 (1) of the former Electronic Commerce Act, and Article 3 (1) of the Digital Signature Protection Act.