logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.12.13 2016다233576
대여금
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Article 3(1) of the former Special Act on the Protection of Suretys (amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “A guarantee shall take effect upon a written indication with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor.”

The purpose of the former Act was to contribute to the establishment of a credit society by preventing the economic and mental damage of the guarantor due to the guarantee performed without compensation by providing for special cases on the Civil Code with respect to the guarantee, and by establishing a reasonable practice of guarantee contract for monetary obligations.

(1) Article 1. Such a request for a document stating the name and seal or signature of the guarantor in the declaration of intent to guarantee is made out of the purport that, by clearly expressing the intent to guarantee, the dispute is prevented by guaranteeing the means of clear confirmation as to the existence and content of the intent to guarantee, and that, as far as possible, the guarantor does not reach the level of guarantee, and provides a guarantee as a result of deliberation and inspection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da23372 Decided June 27, 2013). Generally, unlike the name and seal, a signature means that the nominal owner himself/herself has written his/her name.

However, if it includes the third party's name on behalf of the guarantor, the original purpose of the signature of the guarantor that the guarantor expresses his/her own will is set out and actually results in wide recognition of the establishment of guarantee contracts through oral guarantee contracts and guarantee contracts that the guarantor does not know the contents of guarantee in detail, and this will be dismissed in the legislative intent of the former Act that intends to protect the guarantor from the act of rush guarantee.

Therefore, the legislative purpose, purpose, and contents of the former Act on the Protection of Surety.

arrow