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 plaintiff asserted that on March 29, 2013, the plaintiff lent KRW 20,000 to the non-party C. Since the defendant made a verbal agreement to guarantee the above loan to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and the damages for delay as prescribed in the Civil Act to the plaintiff. The defendant asserts that there is no document with his name and seal or signature on the above guarantee, and therefore, the defendant does not bear the duty of guarantee pursuant to Article 3 (1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety.
2. In light of the judgment, Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Guarantor (hereinafter “Special Act on the Protection of Surety”) 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.” As such, requesting the declaration of intent to guarantee the document with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor is clearly indicated, and on the other hand, it appears to the purport that a more clear means of confirmation is guaranteed as to the existence and content of the guarantee is guaranteed, and on the other hand, the guarantor does not reach the guarantee to the extent possible, and provides a guarantee as a result of deliberation and inspection.
(2) In light of the aforementioned provisions and the legislative intent of the Act on the Protection of guarantors, Etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da23372, Jun. 27, 2013). In light of the aforementioned provisions and the legislative intent thereof, a guarantee cannot be effective even if the guarantor expresses his/her intent of guarantee by any other means without his/her own signature and seal or signature. However, the fact that the Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff does not have any dispute between the parties, and the fact that the document indicating his/her intent of guarantee was not prepared in the course of guaranteeing the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff does not exist between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.