beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Of the reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, “1. Recognition” and “2. The determination on the cause of the claim” are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion is a continuous contract. In this case, when concluding a guarantee contract pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”), the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt must be specified in writing. Since the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt under the joint and several surety contract of this case was not specified, the said joint and several surety contract is null and void pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Surety Protection Act.
B. Determination 1) Article 6(1) and (2) of the Surety Protection Act provides that, in a case where a guarantee of a debt arising from a continuous transaction contract between a creditor and a principal debtor or any other specific type of transaction is guaranteed, the maximum amount of the debt guaranteed shall be specified in writing, and that a guarantee contract that does not specify the maximum amount of the debt in writing is null and void. According to the above facts and each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 4 above, in the case where a debtor B, the principal debtor of the construction, in the process of presumed the scrap metal generated from the extension of a F Hospital, to approximately 800 tons, agreed to sell the whole scrap metal to the Plaintiff, the creditor (the buyer of the goods) for the period from February 2 to December 2013 (Article 3(1) and (3) of the Contract), the specific unit price is determined at the time to be linked to an individual market for delivery of the scrap metal (Article 3(2) of the Contract), but it is reasonable to deem the supply contract against the Plaintiff as a joint surety.
In addition, the defendant's joint and several surety contract of this case is written.