beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments to the Plaintiff’s assertion raised in the trial, and therefore, it is identical to the written judgment of the court of first instance.
[Additional Parts] The plaintiff, upon the plaintiff's request that the goods cannot be supplied any longer if the defendant does not fully pay the price of the goods, directly expresses his intention of joint and several liability, prepares and delivers the letter of undertaking of this case, and then bring profits to the company after receiving the goods from the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that the liability for joint and several liability does not exist only when the plaintiff seeks the performance of the guaranteed obligation, it is invalid in violation of the principle of good faith and the principle
The purpose of the Act is to contribute to the establishment of a credit society by preventing the economic and mental damage of the guarantor due to any guarantee made without any consideration and by establishing a reasonable practice of guarantee contract for monetary obligations (Article 1 of the Act). An agreement contrary to the Act on the Protection of the Surety, which is an agreement contrary to the Act on the Protection of the Surety, has no effect against the guarantor.
(1) Article 11 of the Act provides that the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation shall be specified in writing when entering into a guarantee agreement under the former part of Article 4 of the Act on the Protection of Surety, and this is understood as intending to make it possible for a guarantor to estimate in advance the main contents of the legal burden he/she bears (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da23372, Jun. 27, 2013). In light of the purport of the provisions of the Act on the Protection of Surety, the circumstance alleged by the Plaintiff alone is in violation of the Act on the Protection of Surety, which is a mandatory provision, that the Defendant asserts that there is no obligation