1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court on the cause of the claim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion did not have a digital signature as a joint and several surety at the time of entering into the guarantee insurance contract of this case, and there was no contact from the plaintiff about the fact of joint and several surety

At the time, the defendant was not a representative director or a director who substantially controls A (hereinafter referred to as "A"), and since the defendant resigned from his position as an executive officer, the claim of this case cannot be complied with since the claim of this case occurred.

B. 1) The Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Documents Act”) on whether the joint and several sureties agreement is effective

In full view of the contents of Articles 7(2)2 and 11 of this Act, and Articles 3(2) and 18-2 of the Digital Signature Act and the legislative purpose to ensure the safety and reliability of electronic documents and electronic transactions, an electronic document sent by a person verified by an authorized certificate issued by the licensed certification authority in the transaction of electronic documents, even if it was produced and sent against his/her will, barring any special circumstance, constitutes “where the electronic document received was sent by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent,” as provided in Article 7(2)2 of the Electronic Document Act, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the addressee of the electronic document constitutes “where the electronic document received was sent by the addressee in the relationship with the originator or his/her agent,” and thus, the addressee of the electronic document can perform legal acts by deeming the originator’s expression of intent included in the electronic document as the document without undergoing additional identification procedures, such as telephone calls or interviews (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da257395, Mar. 2