The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 3(1) of the former Special Act on the Protection of Suretys (amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015) provides that “A guarantee shall take effect only when the intent is indicated in writing with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor.”

In principle, it is reasonable to interpret that “the signature of the guarantor” as stipulated in the above provision means the guarantor’s personal name and that another person’s name on behalf of the guarantor does not correspond to that of the guarantor.

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da233576 Decided December 13, 2017, and Supreme Court Decision 2018Da282473 Decided March 14, 2019). 2. Reviewing the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

D Upon receipt of a copy of the Defendant’s driver’s license from the Defendant, the Defendant made an application for the instant loan to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party C Bank”), and prepared a letter of collateral guarantee and a credit transaction agreement (hereinafter “the instant joint and several guarantee agreement”) with the content that “the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the instant loan obligations”.

The name of the defendant stated in each column of joint and several sureties in the document is written in lieu of D, and the name and seal of the defendant was not written.

B. D submitted the instant joint and several guarantee contract and the copy of the driver’s license under the name of the Defendant to the Nonparty C Bank for a defect in the application for the loan, the employees of the Nonparty C Bank directly contact the Defendant by telephone and asked the Defendant about whether he/she is the Defendant himself/herself, whether he/she written in the instant joint and several guarantee contract, and whether he/she wishes to provide a joint and several guarantee for D, and at that time, the Defendant responded to

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the joint and several surety contract of this case is not directly signed by the defendant but signed by D in the name of the defendant, and even though the defendant calls with the non-party C Bank employees, the contract of this case.