The meaning of the language and text of the financial guarantee statement that "if the guarantor causes an accident or causes damage to the property by intention or mistake after commencement of the transaction, the guarantor shall bear the responsibility."

The phrase of the financial guarantee that "if the principal guarantor causes an accident or causes damage to property by intention or mistake after commencing a transaction with the principal, the principal shall bear his responsibility" should be interpreted as guaranteeing the principal debtor's obligation to be borne by the principal in the future from the date of commencing the transaction with the principal debtor. Therefore, the contents of the financial guarantee cannot be deemed as jointly and severally guaranteed the non-party's obligation to be borne by the principal debtor against the plaintiff by the principal debtor.

Article 105 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na40293 delivered on January 28, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 received the video tapes from the plaintiff on April 20, 1992 between the plaintiff and the non-party 2, who sold them to his customer (video store) and decided to receive the video tapes from the plaintiff and sell them to the above customer. In addition, the non-party 2 agreed to accept the outstanding amount of 18,356,000 won which the non-party 2 had borne by the plaintiff at the time of the above transaction agreement and to pay it together. The above transaction agreement demanded the above non-party 1 to pay a guarantee for the debts owed to the plaintiff according to the above transaction agreement, and the above non-party 1 requested the defendants who are the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who are the non-party 1, and accordingly, the defendants did not accept the above contract's new contents after commencing the transaction with the plaintiff ○○○○ and the non-party 1, as well as the above financial guarantee agreement.

The language and text of the above financial guarantee shall be interpreted to mean that the above non-party 1 guaranteed the obligation to be borne by the plaintiff in the future from April 20, 1992, which was the date when the transaction was commenced with the plaintiff. Therefore, in accordance with the contents of the above financial guarantee, it shall not be deemed that the defendants guaranteed the existing obligation to be borne by the plaintiff non-party 2 (hereinafter referred to as "existing obligation to be borne by the plaintiff non-party 1").

In addition, as acknowledged by the court below, even if the plaintiff demanded the above non-party 1 to guarantee the above existing outstanding amount owed by the Dong to the plaintiff under the above transaction agreement, such circumstance alone is not sufficient to deem that the defendants guaranteed the above existing outstanding amount, and even after examining the record, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendants accepted the above existing amount of outstanding amount upon the request of the above non-party 1 to guarantee the above existing amount of outstanding amount, and there is no other obvious evidence to deem that the defendants guaranteed the above existing amount of outstanding amount of outstanding.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below that the defendants guaranteed the existing outstanding amount payable to the above defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of the meaning of the above financial guarantee statement, or in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence, and since such illegality has influenced the judgment, it is obvious that this error has influenced the judgment, it is reasonable to point out

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)